This anecdote casts Murray’s performance in a fascinating light. At times, he sounds genuinely engaged; at others, he sounds like he’s phoning it in from a dentist’s waiting room. Yet, paradoxically, that “too good for this” energy fits Garfield’s character perfectly. Murray’s improvised lines (like muttering “It’s Mondays people, it’s not the end of the world” or his rapid-fire complaints about Jon’s terrible cooking) are the film’s comedic highlights.
In the summer of 2004, a beloved, lasagna-obsessed, Monday-hating cartoon icon made his leap from the funny pages to the big screen. Garfield: The Movie brought Jim Davis’s global comic strip sensation into the world of CGI/live-action hybrid filmmaking, a genre popularized by the likes of Scooby-Doo and Stuart Little . The result? A critical punching bag that somehow still managed to claw its way to box office success and a loyal, nostalgic fanbase. The film’s plot is, much like Garfield himself, comfortably simple. Garfield (voiced with world-weary cynicism by Bill Murray) lives a life of pure, selfish bliss in his suburban home. He has a hapless owner, Jon Arbuckle (Breckin Meyer), who is pining after his beautiful veterinarian, Dr. Liz Wilson (Jennifer Love Hewitt). Garfield’s kingdom is threatened when Jon brings home a happy-go-lucky, slobbering yellow dog named Odie. garfield o filme 2004
The live-action cast does what they can with a thin script. Breckin Meyer is perfectly serviceable as the kind, dorky Jon, though he lacks the extreme patheticness of the comic strip. Jennifer Love Hewitt is radiant as Liz, but her character arc—from disliking Jon to kissing him—relies on the flimsiest of reasons (he’s “good with animals”). Stephen Tobolowsky, a character actor legend, chews the scenery with glee as the cartoonishly evil Happy Chapman. Let’s address the elephant—or rather, the orange cat—in the room. The CGI for Garfield and the other animals has aged remarkably poorly. Garfield himself is rendered with a weird, plasticky sheen. His fur lacks texture, his eyes are too human and uncanny, and his mouth movements never quite sync with Murray’s voice. When he “walks” on his hind legs or uses his paws like hands, it looks less like a magic cartoon cat and more like a furry puppet from a budget theme park. This anecdote casts Murray’s performance in a fascinating
And yet… the film made on a $50 million budget. Children (the target audience) loved it. For a generation of ‘90s and early 2000s kids, this was their Garfield. It spawned a sequel, Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (2006), which is famously even weirder (featuring Garfield in a British royal palace) and was Bill Murray’s final voice role as the character before Chris Pratt took over in 2024’s The Garfield Movie . Final Verdict: A Guilty Pleasure or an Unnecessary Sequel? Looking back 20 years later, Garfield: The Movie is objectively not a good film. It’s slow in places, the humor is often juvenile, and the CGI is a relic of its era. But it is also remarkably inoffensive and, in small doses, genuinely charming. The result