Yes, there are two comics-related, feline-themed movies this year...
So, I have now had occasion to watch the Garfield trailer several times. Three times in the cinema and Spaf only knows how often on television. One thing has been clear since the first viewing: this movie is terrible. Awful. A moral evil doing nothing but contributing to the heat death of the universe. In fact, the trailer makes the movie out to be such an obvious flop, that it is almost a revelatory experience. Like Saul Tarsky, then, I must ask myself: has this
movie any chance to succeed. (Remember, lest you scoff, "Kangaroo Jack" was the number one movie for a while.)
The writers have some chops and a legitimate track record with "Cheaper by the Dozen" and "Toy Story" to their credit. "Garfield" was once a funny strip, and there's enough meat in the source material for a talented writer to get a good movie out of it. Garfield is voiced by Bill Murray who is just an insanely
funny man. Jennifer Love Hewitt is astonishingly attractive, and captures the screen in a a way reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn or Rita Hayworth.
On the minus side, the writers do not include Mark Evanier who was the last person to do anything worthwhile with a Jim Davis property. Love Hewitt, who was Hollywood's "It" girl back in the late 1990's when Hollywood kept "It" girls for the more than a month or so, hasn't picked a decent script since "The Devil
and Daniel Webster" which got withheld from release. Her last big movie was the Jackie Chan vehicle "The Tuxedo." Meanwhile, Jim, a pivotal character in the strip as he plays off Garfield, is played by Breckin Meyer. I am unfamiliar with this guy, but the obvious choice was Harold Ramis. If they had to go younger, they absolutely need someone with star power, say Ashton Kutcher or even Seth Green. Bill Murray voicing a CGI cat will not let an unknown share the screen. Meyer has a track record, but as far as I can tell, no starring roles.
Of course, the other thing Garfield has going for it is a fan base. There exist people, my cousin Kari, who LOVE Garfield. Remember those stupid Garfield suction cup things that struck on the back of cars? Someone bought those and enough of them to make them a national joke. Garfield is ridiculously well-known, and so it is possible his fans will make the movie successful.
But my God, does it look horrible or what?
Posted by Mike Chary at June 8, 2004 10:50 AM
| TrackBack
In a rational world, this movie never even would have been made. But those goddamned horrible Dr. Seuss adaptations made money, so I (sadly) think you're right, and they'll need wheelbarrows to haul all the money this thing brings in.
For me, the big question is how Bill Murray got tied up with this. How do you go from Lost in Translation to Garfield? Doesn't he have enough money by now to be choosy about his projects? Does someone have compromising pictures of him with a goat or something?
I've seen it. It's worse than you can imagine.
And Murray is hardly the most discriminating actor out there. Sure, there's "Lost in Translation," but he also did "Charlie's Angels," "Osmosis Jones," and "Larger than Life."
Don't know about the goat.
Remember, lest you scoff,
"Kangaroo Jack" was the number one movie for a while.)
Kangaroo Jack hitting #1 doesn't count because it was released in January, the 12th best month of the year for movies.
January is the dumping month for movies. A movie that would have been a box office success would have been released earlier in time for X-Mas holidays; a critical success would have been released in December to be Oscar-eligible.
In other news, Ebert gave the thing three stars, John Stewart had Love on his show, and openly mocked her, called Bill Murray a "money whore" and offered to let his dog eat her dog. Conan had her and her breasts on his show, and did not show a clip or really mention the movie. I think Bill is just taking roles with pretty girls, though he apparently did not get to meet Love.
A January openning might not provide for much in the way of original opennings, but a lot of the Oscar contenders were probably still around or openning in wide release. And regardless, they don't take the money away from you. Kangaroo Jack made some cash.
In other, other news, Murray appeared on Letterman dressed as a clown, ostensibly becuase he was temping for Circus du Soleil.
When you're discussing relative box office position, being released in January becomes relevant. If Garfield were to make the same amount Kangaroo Jack did on opening weekend, it would barely crack fifth place.
The only other movies opening that weekend were a Martin Lawrence movie and A Guy Thing plus The Hours extended its release to a whopping 400 screens (and actually did better per screen than KJ (forgive the abbreviation; I'm a very busy man)). Oscar nominations hadn't been announced yet so the boost those provide hadn't happened yet. Also it was the first kiddie movie released in a while (it wasn't really a kiddie movie but it was advertised as one).
Well, FWIW, Garfield placed fifth ($21.7M), behind Harry Potter ($35M, $158M total), Riddick ($24.6M), Shrek 2 ($24M, $354M total) and the Stepford Wives ($22.2M). Steep drop to $14M for Day After Tomorrow, then nothing else in double digit millions.
Not a flop, not not exactly a screaming success. All three of the top new movies this week did about the same, all whupped by the Boy Who Drew Boxoffice.
Well, we nearly lost a contributor today as my car was rear-ended on my way to see, yes, Garfield, with my mom. I was stopped at a major intersection when a car driven by members of the Salvation Army, which had a convention here this weekend with officers from all over the midwest, careened into me from behind. Had it been a semi, I'd be dead. So apparently God, at least, wants to keep the numbers down for openning weekend. I have not been saved,however, as my mother still wants to go tomorrow..
So how to interpret these numbers. I used to be paid to see movies, so I have been known to see as many as four or five of the things in a weekend together with several DVDs. But most people see one movie a week. And if they don't want to see a movie, they'll just do something else. But sometuimes if they go to a movie, and it's sold out, they'll see another movie. But the numbers are close, but low, so I doubt that's in play. So, the question is, will Garfield justly decline as the Supreme Being intends, or do the people who saw Stepford this week, go to Garfield next week?
Note that fifth-place Garfield made more than Kangaroo Jack did in its first-place opening weekend. This is why January first-place openings are easily dismissed.
I think the significant thing to note here is that Grafield is (mostly) a kids' movie and that Shrek 2 beat it. So it seems to me that a lot of kids decided they'd rather see Shrek 2 again than see Garfield for the first time.
At the risk of playing armchair Nostradamus, I'm not surprised this movie did well. The apt comparisson wasn't Kangaroo Jack, though -- it was Scooby Doo. Take one decades-old cartoon character beloved by parents of 6-year-olds everywhere, add CGI and mix. This one didn't have teen hearthrobs like Freddie Prinze Jr. or Buffy Michelle Gellar, so it didn't pull in the 12-14 year old crowd the way Scooby did, but it was safe and familiar for parents who didn't want to see Shrek one more time.