Garfield

It's hard to know whether movie critics, like the rest of the population, are divided into dog lovers and cat lovers. But there's certainly a mix of feelings about Garfield: The Movie, with some critics giving it some pleasant strokes, while others calling it, well, a dog. Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times is one of the former. Ebert writes that the movie captures the elusive charm of the most egotistical character on the funny pages, and drops him into a story that allows him to bask in his character flaws. But A.O. Scott is the New York Times suggests that the story is one of the movie's problems. Most humorous comic strips don't have them. The problem with Garfield: The Movie is that it does, he writes. Most of the reviewers, even those who hate the film, give Bill Murray high marks for giving Garfield a voice. Chris Kaltenback in the Baltimore Sun writes that it's hard to think of a movie more dependent for its success on someone whose face is never seen. Ann Hornaday in the Washington Post hypothesizes: Bill Murray would be entertaining even if he were reciting the tax tables. That thesis is just about put to the test in Garfield: The Movie. It is the triumph of the audio over the visual, and Murray over all, writes Carrie Rickey in the Philadelphia Inquirer. But some critics find little in the movie to relish -- not even Garfield's prized lasagna. Lou Lumenick in the New York Post, for example, calls the movie a downright cat-astrophe.

This cat got skills