Fede Álvarez delivers a film in Alien: Romulus that tries to revitalize the franchise but stumbles on several key aspects. While visually appealing and faithful to the oppressive atmosphere characteristic of the saga, the movie lacks a solid narrative and memorable characters.
The script relies too heavily on genre clichés, with bland dialogue and unconvincing decisions from its protagonists. Attempts to explore philosophical themes about survival and human nature remain superficial, leaving the impression that the film tries to tackle more than it can handle.
Álvarez’s direction, which has shone in the past with more intimate horror projects, feels overwhelmed in such an established universe. The moments of tension and terror fail to achieve the desired impact, falling into an uneven rhythm that alternates between dull and predictable.
For the most devoted fans of Alien, this installment is particularly disappointing. In an unfortunate parallel to Disney's mishandling of the Star Wars saga, Romulus feels like a production that prioritizes franchise formulas over true innovation or respect for the original spirit. Rather than expanding the Alien legacy, the film dilutes it, leaving a bitter aftertaste for fans who had expected much more.
Ultimately, Alien: Romulus fails to live up to its heritage, becoming a missed opportunity and a reminder that not all cinematic revivals are necessary.

The Alien franchise has had its ups and downs with mostly the latter in recent years. This latest one, which takes place in between Alien: Covenant and Alien in the timeline, is a solid entry from Fede Alvarez and is more in the vein of the first film in terms of look and tone. The story is pretty basic and no real twists that we haven't seen before in the franchise, but I did like the lead actress Cailee Spaeny. The classic line, "Getaway from her you bitch" was delivered as great as Bale's "I'll be back" from Terminator Salvation (meaning not very well). Still, an all around entertaining sci-fi horror film that has great effects, both practical and CGI. **3.5/5**

"Alien: Romulus" is a visually admirable film, but it really has nothing new to show us and even worse than that it has nothing fresh to say. It is merely content to plunder inspiration from the preceding films and the only entry in the series which appears to be left unplundered is "Alien 3" (1992), but then this omission can hardly be described as surprising. After all, it isn't held in particularly high regard by the legions of loyal fans who absolutely adore these films for their often groundbreaking achievements and idolise the inexhaustible resourcefulness of Ellen Ripley. Unfortunately, these same loyal fans aren't going to find anything worth adoring or idolising in this latest effort. It is still a reasonably entertaining motion picture, but only because you can spend most of the running time attempting to guess which scene comes from which film in order to appease your overwhelming sense of disappointment with it all.

**Maybe the best "Alien" movie after "Aliens", but at least as good as Prometheus (but in a different way)**
I enjoyed this movie a lot. It didn't try to be edgy or special - it seems to be directed by a guy who loved the first 2 Alien movies from the 80ies and wanted to add a movie as best as he could do in our time which is still faithful to those 2 original movies and could be considered a worthy addition to the original "Alien" storyline.
The acting was overall very good. Cailee Spaeny as the lead actress gave a solid performance as expected. But the surprise of the movie was David Jonsson as her android "brother", who was the highlight of the movie actingwise for me.
Another main thing to mention are the effects and set desing. A lot of great practical effects, lighting and cinematography and the set design which is faithful to that of the first 2 Alien movies make this movie a great enjoyment for anyone who like the.
So, if you love the first 2 Alien movies - this movie is for you!

This is a great B-movie for people looking for a bit of a thrill.

This was a great movie and a great continuation of Alien series. I think it deserves solid, perfect 10/10. I couldn't see any flow, everything was great.

Alien: Romulus is a love letter to the 1979 classic, and while I dug the whole philosophical space-god thing in Prometheus, this stripped-down, back-to-basics approach had me hooked from the first frame. It's been a while since an Alien film truly captured that sense of claustrophobic dread, and Romulus nails it.
This movie is gorgeous, plain and simple. The lighting, the camera angles, and Benjamin Wallfisch's score – it all blends together to create this constant tension that just sucks you in. There's this one scene where Rain, Andy and Tyler are being chased through the research station, the way they use the shadows and movement, it's like a masterclass in suspense. It totally reminded me of the most terrifying moments from the original. It's obvious Álvarez was obsessed with recreating that gritty, lived-in feel of the first Alien, and it pays off big time.
The cast is solid too. Cailee Spaeny and David Jonsson absolutely kill it as Rain and Andy. I'll admit, I was worried Andy would be your typical forgettable sidekick, but he actually gets a pretty interesting arc. Sure, most of the crew are basically there to get picked off by the Xenomorph, but Andy was a standout supporting character. He basically played two roles. It's refreshing that the movie doesn't waste time with a bunch of unnecessary characters.
One thing this movie does really well is finding that sweet spot between horror and action that made the first two films so iconic. Alien 3 was so bleak, and Resurrection was just bonkers action – this one feels like a proper blend of both. Fede Álvarez basically throws in all the best Alien tropes: the ragtag crew, the creepy body horror stuff, the tense hide-and-seek scenes, and some kickass action sequences. And you know what? It totally works.
I was impressed at a lot of the creative set pieces and how they built tension. Like how they played with gravity to avoid the acid and trying to sneak past the facehuggers by camoflaging their body temperature. They were really cool and shockingly unique and fresh for a nearly 50 old franchise. And let's talk about that body horror. There's this one scene, a seriously messed-up vaginal birth, that is going to be burned into my brain for a while. Álvarez definitely gets what makes this franchise tick.
I'm giving Alien: Romulus a strong 7/10. It lost some points for the use of the CGI Ian Holm. It's so distracting, and they rely on it way too much. Also, there some lines that were stuck in there for nostalgia that felt out of place. But honestly, those are minor nitpicks in a movie that's this much fun. The whole final act, with the station crashing into the asteroid field and that epic showdown with the Human/ Xeno, is just pure chaos in the best way possible.
Alien: Romulus is a worthy successor to the Alien throne. It's a visual treat, a thrilling ride, and a damn good reminder of why we love this franchise in the first place.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/alien-romulus-review-an-audiovisual-triumph-held-back-by-reverence-to-the-past/
"Alien: Romulus is an impressive technical spectacle that highlights Fede Álvarez's talent in creating an atmosphere of tension and horror, raising the audiovisual standard of the saga to new heights through immersive sound design and Galo Olivares' stunning cinematography, which deserves countless accolades.
However, its excessive reliance on references to the past prevents it from reaching its full narrative potential, as well as achieving a thematic impact similar to the franchise's best installments.
Despite this, the captivating performances of Cailee Spaeny and David Jonsson, along with a third act filled with insane entertainment, make this interquel a cinematic experience worth seeing in IMAX, even if it leaves the feeling that it could have been more daring and innovative."
Rating: B+

Color me thoroughly surprised at how much I was delighted by “Alien: Romulus,” a highly creative, beautifully executed, pulse-pounding science fiction film from director Fede Alvarez. This sequel is a rare gem in the world of big budget franchise flicks because it not only respects its predecessors with thoughtfully well done homages, but also pushes the boundaries of the universe it inhabits with inventive set pieces and a plausible story. Fans of the series and the genre are in for a real treat.
Going back to the roots of the “Alien” franchise, the film tells the story of a group of young space colonizers (Cailee Spaeny, David Jonsson, Archie Renaux, Isabela Merced, Aileen Wu, and Spike Fearn)who are looking for a way out of their current situation as hard laborers on a sunless planet. While searching the universe, they encounter a decommissioned ship that has enough supplies to take them far, far away. Intent on scavenging, the group makes a risky voyage into space where they get far more than they bargained for: a face-to-face encounter with a terrifying life form from which they may have no hope of escape.
The strength of the story is also in its simplicity, and Alvarez uses swift pacing and straightforward character development to create an irresistible hook for audiences. He creates a crackerjack blend of suspense, horror, and science fiction that not only hearkens back to the original films, but also offers up something fresh and modernized for a new generation. Even better, the film is very dark and isn’t dumbed down for casual viewers, which shows a great deal of respect to long-time sci-fi fans. This isn’t just another sequel that is exploiting a franchise’s good will, it actually has some substance.
There’s an atmosphere of dread that commands most of the movie, and the action scenes are imaginative and inspired. I was on the edge of my seat multiple times, and several of the set pieces are visually fun, too. The special effects are not flashy or over-polished like the ones that tend to dominate modern blockbusters (even the alien creature itself remains largely unchanged from its original, iconic 1979 design), which turns out to be the perfect complement to the film’s strong narrative foundation. Heightened tension and fear is created through well-crafted suspense rather than constant visual bombardment. There’s a level of sophistication here that elevates it beyond a mere retread of past “Alien” films.
I was especially surprised about how quickly I started to care about the characters, who don’t exactly give off the best first impression (they seem like they will be stereotypical and highly annoying, but that’s not the case). As the story unfolds, so do the layers of depth and complexity, both which make the fate of these friends matter. The film is well cast, and Spaeny’s versatility shines through in a role that requires both emotional range and physical intensity.
The film is willing to take risks, especially when it comes to killing off characters. The unpredictability of who will survive and who has the wits to escape from harrowing situations adds another layer of tension and sense of danger. Nothing here feels preordained, and that in itself is exciting.
“Alien: Romulus” is a wildly satisfying addition to the franchise because it’s a film that understands what made the original great and uses those elements to create something new and exciting. It succeeds in paying homage to its predecessors while also forging its own identity, honoring its legacy in a way that will have sci-fi nerds salivating for future installments.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

Whilst not as awful as the Aliens franchise films that came after the excellent first and second films, starring Sigourney Weaver, Alien Romulus is not without its shortcomings.
Whats immediately noticeable, in spite of the rugged, industrial setting, is a cast that look like they just escaped from the set of Beverly Hills 90210. Youthful, fresh faced, physically unimposing, with not a grease stain or blemish in sight, they feel badly out of place.
If you can put the sense of disbelief regarding the casting aside (I couldn't) the actual story fares only marginally better. It feels like a borrowed affair, where its taken aspects of the first two successful films and tried to craft a newer iteration.
The results an alright, if at times, somewhat ridiculous story, punctuated by moments of compelling action. That said, haven't we seen it all before, in one form or another?
In summary, miscasting combined with a story that blandly apes superior earlier films, leads to an "okay" watch that's fails to distinguish itself.If you are new to this franchise, my advice start with Alien from 1979 and then its plural successor Aliens, instead.

I gather director Fede Alvarez made a conscious - and probably expensive - decision to keep the use of CGI to a minimum here and it really does work. "Rain" (Cailee Spaeny) and her "brother" are looking to get off-planet but she can't get travel papers from the all-powerful mining company. Desperate, she and "Andy" (David Jonsson) are offered a chance by wide boys "Tyler" (Archie Renaux) and "Bjorn" (Spike Fearn) to raid a decrepit old spacecraft that appears to be in a decaying orbit, so they can pinch it's cryogenic pods and enable them all to escape to another planet out of reach of their enthralling taskmasters. Off they set onto the "Romulus" and that's where, well you just know what's going to happen now, as they inadvertently turn the central heating on and find themselves in mortal danger. "Andy" just happens to be a synthetic, which proves especially useful when they discover the remains of "Rook" (the spitting image of the late Sir Ian Holm) but is this oozing mess of gunge and wiring actually an help or an hindrance? Getting off is going to be a lot harder than getting on! To be honest, the acting here is really neither here nor there. Renaux and Isabella Merced - their cohort "Kay" do enough, Fearn rather over-plays his chip-on-the-shoulder character and there's a slightly soporific effort from Jonsson, but that's not what I was watching for. This is all about the best monsters sci-fi cinema has ever created, and right from their first appearance I was in their corner. There's loads of darkly shot menace crammed into the two hours with plenty of references to it's originator and even more insinuations about the greed of a "company" that doesn't know when to leave well alone. Just like the other "Alien" films, it takes a Russian Doll approach to the ending, so don't think we're going to get off with just the one, definitive, "get away from her..." moment, and of course the lift plays a pivotal part in the proceedings as acid blood drips everywhere. It's not so good as the first two Sigourney Weaver outings, but slips neatly into bronze medal position for me in a series that can still prove quite compellingly scary. It's a cinema must - telly just won't do the lighting and photography justice at all.

'Alien: Romulus' is actually very good.
Of the more modern day releases from this franchise, this is the one I've enjoyed the most. When I was immediately coming out of the cinema I was just plainly thinking of it as being solidly good, however the more I think about it the more I had fun with this seventh installment.
The plot, or at least the set-up to it, is quite uncreative, as in I feel like so many films - from this series included - have a crew make-up of similar people and similar characteristics/motivations; 'Crater' and 'I.S.S.' (both very good, don't get me wrong) are recent examples that spring to mind. Happily, though, the rest of the flick makes up for any weakness in that area.
Cailee Spaeny and David Jonsson are the great performers in this, I found them both to be excellent throughout. Two actors I want to see much more of, having already seen them in a few pleasing pictures; e.g. 'Civil War' and 'Rye Lane'.
I also liked the sound design and even the jump scares, which I'm not usually a fan of (bit lazy etc.) but there is enough about how they do them here that it works. Those facehuggers remain brilliantly effective, though the xenomorph isn't amazingly utilised - the human version didn't hit for me, felt 'I Am Legend'-esque.
All in all, it's up there as one of my favourites from the franchise. For me, 'Alien' and 'Aliens' just narrowly better this, though it's a marginal improvement on (the entertaining) 'Alien Resurrection' and it surpasses every other release, in my eyes.

The best thing I can say is this wasn't terrible. Just not good either and should've leaned into a mix of horror and comedy which they briefly did at the very end. Otherwise there's nothing that stands out from the bland characters and visual effects that look like leftovers from The Conjuring Universe. Nothing memorable and lands right there with other poor supernatural-horror flicks like Truth or Dare and Ouija. **2.0/5**

Tarot was a terrible horror movie from start to finish. It’s another low-budget studio horror film that relies heavily on formulaic tropes, stacking one cliché after another in a convoluted story that makes no sense.
The plot is riddled with the usual horror clichés, making it predictable and uninspiring. For instance, the film features the classic haunted object, the mysterious stranger, and the inevitable jump scares. These elements, rather than building suspense or adding depth, only serve to make the narrative feel tired and unoriginal. The lack of creativity in the storyline means that even potential twists are telegraphed far in advance, leaving little room for genuine suspense.
The only bright spot in the film is Jacob Batalon, who adds some much-needed comedy to the otherwise dreary proceedings. His comedic timing provides brief relief from the monotony and gives the audience something to enjoy amidst the chaos but does little to improve the movie.
Even the horror elements, which should be the film’s strength, are poorly executed. The scare scenes are predictable and lack the punch necessary to leave a lasting impact. The build-up to these moments is often clumsy, with telegraphed scares that fail to deliver the desired jolt.
On The Scene Snobs Channel, we believe that if you don't like a movie, you should recommend another. If you are not a fan of Tarot, I suggest watching 'Dead Silence' from 2007. This film offers a more engaging and original take on horror, with a well-crafted story and genuinely creepy moments.

"Tarot," directed by Marielle Heller, is a captivating supernatural thriller that delves into the world of tarot card reading. Anya Taylor-Joy shines as the lead, portraying a character whose life becomes entangled with the predictions of a mystical tarot deck. The film's atmospheric visuals and compelling narrative keep viewers engaged, blending suspense and drama effectively. Supported by strong performances from Willem Dafoe and Tilda Swinton, "Tarot" explores themes of fate and self-discovery with a thought-provoking script. Overall, it's a visually stunning and engaging film that offers a fresh take on supernatural storytelling.

Tarot is another PG-13 "horror" film using all the cliches and tropes from every other millennial horror film released in the past ten years.
Filled with bad CGi, super-fast moving black-eyed "ghosts," and generic jump scares, along with a badly written and poorly acted script , you are in for a real treat with this one, people.
All the violence is off screen and the ending is poorly written and predictable from the beginning.

Aside from the novel pitch for diversity, does anyone really have this many diverse friends?, there's nothing terribly inspiring on offer with Tarot.
To be fair Tarot has decently creepy visuals, a few well placed jump scares and tolerable acting. That said, its let down by a lack of originality, combined with an ultimately repetitious horror theme, that plays over and over, quickly becoming stale.
In summary, what this film needed most was an injection of at least little originality and diversity of the story telling kind. Suffice to say, its mediocre rating, with me at least, was very much, on the cards....

Can't have a movie with people of color or women anymore without someone being racist and sexist.
That being said, this movie is... well, it's not the worst thing I've seen but that doesn't make it good either.
The premise is a group of young adults go playing with tarot cards that don't belong to them and then the tarot cards come to life and start doing the murder because curses and vengeful spirits, also horoscopes and astrology are all the rage again, apparently.
There's nothing new or original here and apart from one jump scare that got me, it's quite boring. There's one redeeming thing about this movie - it doesn't sequel-bait. It ends with some comedy and that's it. Thank goodness.
I skipped watching The First Omen (2024) after about 25 minutes to watch this. I should've skipped this too and just watched another episode of FBI.
Can we get some actual good horror this year?

A group of twenty-somethings have rented a "literal" mansion (I wish writers would find out what that word means and use it properly!) and are having a few fireside beers outside it whilst subjecting us to their dull relationship issues. Needless to say the gang are a politically correct assemblage that tick just about every box and are frankly all pretty well deserving of what's to come. On that front, the clue's in the title. Exploring the house looking to top up their supply of booze, they find a locked room full of all things occult and that includes an unique set of tarot cards. Rather foolishly, but typically disparagingly, they demand that "Haley" (Harriet Slater) read their fortunes. Next thing they are dropping like flies - all in a manner they gradually realise is akin to the results of the tarot reading. As they gruesomely dwindle, they realise that they are going to need some help and so thanks to Google spook, they find a woman (Olwen Fouéré) who informs them of the bleak history of their toxic tarot and tells them that the cards' destruction might be their only road to salvation. Thing is, can they survive long enough to get back to the house? There's nothing at all original here, sorry. We've seen it loads of times before and the uninteresting dynamic between the characters is even more predictable than the denouement. To be fair, the candle-lit visual effects are quite effective at times, but the acting is pretty dreadful and the whole frat-like presentation left me looking at the clock after half an hour. It's a shame. The whole astrology and mythology surrounding the tarot could have offered us a rich vein to tap into and exploit, but here we simply get a rather lazy and formulaic light-horror enterprise that's really devoid of much imagination. Literally.

'IF' holds an interesting on paper concept and shows off some neat special effects. Unfortunately, though, I was pretty bored throughout. I guess I am not the core target audience, it feels more aimed at kids/families despite the moral, though I still didn't really sense much to speak positively about with this one.
I will say that it does set the tone early on nicely (up until the introduction of Blossom & Co.) and concludes with some heart, though everything in-between is underwhelming. The voice cast includes Phoebe Waller-Bridge (who voices the aforementioned) and a fair few other known names, though only Steve Carell (minorly) stood out to me to be honest.
Cailey Fleming does well in the lead role, I already admire her acting due to her time on 'The Walking Dead' - I wish we got more of her as Judith, in fact. Ryan Reynolds - someone I tend to enjoy - feels miscast, I'm all for seeing him play against type but it's just that his character doesn't really do enough to warrant having that sorta actor.
Overall, one I'd consider as 'average'. Mind you, it does include the greatest performance of Brad Pitt's career...

As a fan of John Krasinski, I was really looking forward to watching "IF," but I have to admit, it left me a bit disappointed. Not because it’s a bad movie but because I went in with expectations that weren’t quite met.
"IF" is a solid, well-made film with some great ideas, but it doesn’t fully explore the potential it sets up. It’s clearly aimed at a younger audience, which is fine, but the simplicity of the plot and the way certain moments are handled left me wanting more depth. There are scenes in which the movie tries to make feel urgent but falls flat and doesn’t carry the weight it should. They felt rushed, and that’s a feeling I had throughout much of the movie.
The film has a charming fantasy element that could have been expanded to create something truly magical, but instead, it skims the surface. The pacing is quick, and while that might work for kids, I was hoping for a bit more exploration and development of the ideas presented.
The acting, however, is a bright spot. The cast does a great job with their roles, bringing humor and warmth to the film. Steve Carell as Blue was especially a standout, delivering a performance that was both funny and heartfelt. I just wish we had more of John Krasinski himself, as his presence always adds something special.
Overall, "IF" is a good movie—entertaining, sweet, and funny—but it left me wanting more. It’s worth a watch, especially if you’re in the mood for something light and family-friendly, but don’t expect it to go beyond that.

IF promised an intriguing premise but unfortunately fell short of delivering a compelling narrative. The film heavily relies on celebrity cameos, which, overshadow the story's substance. This overreliance on star power creates a superficial experience that fails to engage the audience meaningfully.
The movie attempts to pull on the heartstrings of the audience, but it does so without a satisfying payoff. Emotional scenes feel forced and unearned, lacking the depth necessary to make a lasting impact.
The narrative structure is weak. The pacing is uneven, jumping from one celebrity cameo to another without allowing the plot to develop naturally. This results in a fragmented viewing experience that leaves the audience struggling to connect with the characters.
The film's attempt to evoke emotion through its storyline falls flat because it doesn’t give enough attention to character development. We see glimpses of potentially interesting backstories, but they are never fully explored. A scene involving a character’s past trauma is introduced but quickly abandoned, leaving the audience with unanswered questions and a sense of incompleteness.
Overall, IF is a movie that misses the mark. Its reliance on celebrity cameos and superficial emotional appeals results in a lackluster film. To improve, the filmmakers should have focused more on developing a strong, cohesive narrative that allows the characters' stories to resonate deeply with the audience. Without this foundation, the film feels hollow and fails to leave a lasting impression.

"What if I told you imaginary friends are real? And when they're kids grow up, they're forgotten."
An "If" is the imaginary friend a child has when they are young. It is a comfort and a companion to get them through the growing up years. But where does the imaginary friend go when it is used up. Apparently, the word "imaginary" needs to be changed.
Bea, played by Cailey Fleming, is a 12 year old girl who lost her mom at a young age. Now her father (John Krasinski) is sick too. Bea moves in with her grandmother to stay near the hospital. Soon she starts seeing everyone's former Imaginary Friends. She is guided by Ryan Reynolds. They are sad and need to be reunited with their formers. Some of those "friends" are pretty creepy.
The film, written and directed by Krasinski, aims to be kind of like a live action "Monsters, Inc". It's really an idea that can only work in animation since it takes out that sense of reality that makes it look too silly. The plot just seems like an idea that has difficulty finding a believable footing.
It might work for young kids, for me it just seems forced and overly sentimental. It's easy to watch since Krasinski obviously handled it with care, and Reynolds seems to enjoy his role. But for me that just isn't enough.

"If" is a whimsical and heartwarming film directed by John Krasinski. Starring an ensemble cast including Ryan Reynolds, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Fiona Shaw, the movie takes viewers on a fantastical journey into the world of imagination. Krasinski's direction brings a perfect blend of humor, charm, and emotional depth, making it a delightful watch for audiences of all ages. The narrative is both engaging and thought-provoking, exploring themes of childhood wonder and the power of belief. With its stellar performances and enchanting story, "If" is a cinematic treat that leaves a lasting impression.

"Bea" (Cailey Fleming) arrives to stay with her grandmother (Fiona Shaw) so she can be near her father (John Krasinski) who is having cancer treatment at a nearby hospital. It's a fairly traumatic time for everyone, but it also becomes quite puzzling for the youngster when she encounters "Blosson", "Blue" (who's actually purple) and their handler "Cal" (Ryan Reynolds) living in the apartment upstairs. She quickly discovers what an "IF" is, and is introduced to loads of them, now adrift in a world where their original partners have grown up and forgotten them. "Cal" and his friends are trying to re-home these friendly and creative critters, and so "Bea" takes an hand helping out. Their first target for a new friend is the friendly "Benjamin". He's a patient in the same hospital as her dad, prone to breaking his bones and though outwardly cheery and good-natured, cuts a rather lonely sight in his room. As the story continues we begin to suspect that it's not just him that needs an "IF". Sure, it's derivative at times, but there's an engaging effort from the young Fleming and the sparing use of the colourful and well integrated visual effects along with some cheery scripting and a few amiable supporting characters that could easily inhabit any toy-box (I liked the bear and the tasting marshmallow) wired well. Also, Reynolds takes enough of a back seat not to impose his presence too firmly on the proceedings. It's an amiable story about family, loneliness and growing up that encourages folks to use and enjoy their imagination. I wasn't really expecting to, but I did quite enjoy this.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/if-review-a-heartwarming-blend-of-animation-and-live-action-that-surpasses-expectations/
"IF is a delightful surprise that exceeds personal expectations. The skillful blend of 3D animation and live-action brings creativity to a layered, profoundly moving narrative, which explores sensitive themes in a truly genuine, reflective manner while successfully conveying a crucial message about the importance of never forgetting the child within us. Cailey Fleming delivers the best young performance of the year, further enhancing the already highly emotional story, much like Michael Giacchino’s lovely score. As a writer-director, John Krasinski once again demonstrates his innate talent by creating a movie all families can enjoy and cry together. It will linger in the audience’s memory for a long time."
Rating: A-

_"And that's why we should go from Sunday to Tuesday."_
As far as animated movies go, this feels like most kid animated movies these days. That being said, there are some really cute moments in this that involve seeing baby Garfield and it actually warmed my skeptical heart. Also my kid is obsessed with this movie but I am not going to log it everytime he watches it.

The Garfield Movie is a vast improvement over the previous live-action Garfield films. Initially, I didn’t expect much, but by the end, I found myself loving this fun and adventurous film. It has a lot of heart, some good laughs, and is great for parents to take their kids to.
One of the standout elements of the movie is the introduction of Garfield’s father, Vic. This addition brings a fresh perspective to the Garfield universe. The dysfunctional father-son dynamic adds depth to the story, making it more engaging.
The plot cleverly intertwines this family dynamic with a heist storyline, which adds excitement and keeps the narrative moving at a brisk pace. The movie offers plenty of laughs, with jokes that appeal to both kids and adults. The humor is well-timed and varies from slapstick to witty one-liners, ensuring that there is something for everyone.
Odie, in particular, stands out and truly rocks in this film. His loyal and energetic presence brings a lot of charm to the screen. The chemistry between Garfield and Odie is spot on, providing some of the film’s most memorable moments.
In conclusion, The Garfield Movie is a delightful surprise and a significant step up from its predecessors. With its heartwarming story, engaging characters, and balanced humor, it’s a film that both kids and parents can enjoy together. The addition of Garfield’s father, Vic, and the dynamic he brings to the story, along with Odie’s standout moments, make this a must-watch for fans of the beloved cat. Whether you’re a long-time Garfield fan or new to his adventures, this film offers a fun and heartwarming experience that’s well worth the time.

"The Garfield Movie" is a lively and entertaining adaptation of the beloved comic strip. Directed by Mark Dindal, the film brings the iconic lazy, lasagna-loving cat to life with vibrant animation and a playful storyline. Chris Pratt voices Garfield with a witty and charming performance, capturing the character's signature sarcasm and laid-back attitude. The film balances humor and heart, providing plenty of laughs for both children and adults. While it stays true to the spirit of the original comics, it also introduces fresh elements that make it a fun, engaging experience for new audiences. Overall, "The Garfield Movie" is a delightful family film that honors its source material while offering a modern twist.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/the-garfield-movie-review-simple-light-hearted-fun-for-the-whole-family/
"The Garfield Movie may not be an animated masterwork or a film that provokes deep reflections, but it effectively fulfills its purpose of entertaining with a story that’s generic yet packed with fun moments.
Boasting the classic sarcastic humor of the titular cat, a light plot, and well-executed action set pieces, it’s an ideal choice for families seeking an enjoyable experience with plenty of laughs.
It serves as a reminder that sometimes a film can be appreciated just for what it always wanted to be – a simple, unpretentious form of entertainment, perfect for a session alongside the little ones."
Rating: B