Tom & Jerry
Maybe they should look to Eric Roberts’s talking cat to help mediate this feud.
Cast of Characters:
Kayla Forester – Chloe Grace Moretz
Terrance Mendoza – Michael Pena
Ben – Colin Jost
Henry DuBros – Rob Delaney
Preeta Mehta – Pallavi Sharda
Jackie – Ken Jeong
Director – Tim Story
Screenplay – Kevin Costello
Based on characters created by William Hanna & Joseph Barbera
Producer – Chris DeFaria
Rated PG for cartoon violence, rude humor and brief language.
The Rundown: In Manhattan, both Tom Cat and his longtime rival Jerry Mouse are trying to get by in the city. Tom has dreams of becoming a professional pianist and Jerry is in search of a new home; however, their never-ending feud keeps getting in the way of them achieving either.
Meanwhile, Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a young woman in dire need of a new job, who manages to land a new position at a fancy hotel helping event manager Terrance Mendoza (Michael Pena) plan a high-profile wedding for celebs Preeta Mehta (Pallavi Sharda) and Ben (Colin Jost).
Wait, I thought this was about Tom and Jerry?
Things are going just swell for Kayla until its found out that there’s a particular rodent problem in the hotel by way of Jerry taking up residence there. So how does Kayla solve the problem? Why, she gets Tom to help out with the pest control.
And cue the crazy, wacky shenanigans.
Pre-Release Buzz: One might wonder why now all of sudden in 2021 we are getting a new Tom & Jerry film. Well, the film’s origins actually trace back all the way to 2009, and now coming out over a decade later, you can safely assume it must’ve been a rocky road for them. Following the financial success of 2007’s live-action/computer-animated Alvin and the Chipmunks, plans were made for a similarly live-action/computer-animated version of Tom & Jerry, but nothing came to fruition there. Then, six years later, in 2015, the studio decided to scrap the live-action direction completely and go with a fully animated film that would stick closely to the original source material. Those plans would also be eventually scrapped. But after a few more years in production hell, Warner Bros. would finally stick to the initial plan of a live-action/computer animated version, with Barbershop and Ride Along director Tim Story signing on to direct.
‘Cause when I think of Tom & Jerry, I think of no one better to direct than the man that directed the Ride Along franchise and the recent Shaft film. But, then again, gore extraordinaire Eli Roth did just fine with The House with a Clock in Its Walls, so I guess anything’s possible.
So after all the delays and changes in direction, here we are with the finished project. But is it worth the wait?
The Good: Despite the fact that kids today may not be clamoring for a Tom & Jerry film, and any cynic could surely say this is just a quick, slapdash attempt by the studio to keep franchise rights from expiring, any interest toward this film would still be understandable. It’s not like we’re talking about some bottom of the barrel, second-rate cartoon franchise here. As Hanna-Barbera’s version of Looney Tunes’s Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner, Tom and Jerry have spanned generations and entertained countless viewers with their high-spirited form of slapstick dueling since their inception in the 1940s.
Here, there is similar fun to be had when the spotlight is on the legendary cat-and-mouse duo duking it out in highly-energetic fashion, particularly during a standout battle that has Tom repeatedly trying to break into a hotel suite occupied by Jerry only to be thwarted by his mousey foe each and every time. It’s in these moments where the film is able to revel in that same sense of frenzied, anarchic joy that made the original series such an enduring animated classic.
That is, of course, whenever the film is kind enough to let its own stars pop up onscreen.
The Bad: And that brings us to the film’s biggest problem. Tom & Jerry should’ve been titled Bait & Switch, ’cause the supposed stars of the film here register just about a few notches above an afterthought. For a film titled Tom & Jerry, you’d think it would want to focus on – uh – I don’t know… maybe Tom and Jerry?
But hey, making sure this wedding between two socialites not even worth our attention much less our care or sympathy goes off without a hitch is a much more important conflict, right?
I’m guessing Tim Story and writer Kevin Costello have never watched a single episode of the original Tom & Jerry series. It is literally a game of cat-and-mouse. That’s it. End of story.
This is a problem that we’ve seen before in other films that have adapted animated properties to feature film. The filmmakers feel the properties themselves aren’t strong enough to carry their own movie, so they create live-action human characters with barely even an ounce of interest to care about to propel a similarly uninteresting story forward. Both the Transformers and Smurf movie franchises are guilty of that, and while the original properties of Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks and Marmaduke include human characters, the films never really gave any clear justification for making it live-action other than I guess they have the technology, so they can.
As Dr. Ian Malcolm would say, “Yeah, but the filmmakers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Maybe they’re trying to be the next Who Framed Roger Rabbit? That film, however, was more than just a special effects gimmick, as its groundbreaking blending of live-action and animation was very integral to the central conflict of the film.
One of the reasons that the SpongeBob SquarePants movies work is that they never lose sight of who its star is. Even when those films transition into a live-action world, SpongeBob and his friends are still the stars, while the live-action actors remain their supporting acts. Here, it’s very evident that Story and Costello have no faith in their two lead animated stars as they instead shift most of the film’s focus on dull, one-dimensional human characters, and when that shift away from Tom and Jerry occurs, boy does it grind the film’s energy and pacing to a halt. Void of any personality, backstory, motivation, reason for existing period, these live-action characters are so vanilla bland, watching paint dry could evoke more intense emotion out of viewers.
Also, I do have to wonder if Costello’s script was nothing more than one page that said in large-font “CAT FIGHTS MOUSE”. Most of the aimless banter between the live-action stars plays out like long-winded improvisation, as if Story gave his actors a prop, pointed where the little CGI mouse or cat may be and then told them to just talk before shouting out action.
And before any of you bring up the argument that a feature-length film can’t be based around lead characters that don’t talk, may I present to you my counter argument of Aardman Animation’s wonderfully sweet and charming Shaun the Sheep Movie?
The Ugly: I get that every movie for an actor is a “paycheck job” ’cause that’s what they get paid to do, but there’s a stark difference between taking on a role that you’re paid for, and just sleepwalking your way to an easy check like the live-action cast is doing here. If there was an award for laziest phoned-in performance, Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena would be frontrunners this year.
Although, it’s still fairly early and I think Bruce Willis has a couple films due out in the next few months.
It really is a shame too, as both Moretz and Pena are talented, and have no excuse to show this much lack of effort. Pena, in particular, is no stranger to family-oriented comedies either, having starred in the live-action adaptation of Dora the Explorer, Dora and the Lost City of Gold, which while no masterpiece, is still far superior to this. It really is condescending too, in a way, to think that this is just a dopey kids movie, so whatever, I can just sleep my way through this and then cash my check at the bank. Going back to The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water, Antonio Banderas didn’t need to go all out as the villain in that film, but he still embraced the silliness of the franchise and played it up. Regardless of what you may think of that film, that’s at least respectable.
Moretz, on the other hand, just goes through the motions as if this is a contractual obligation she regrets signing on to. Quite frankly, the boredom on her face is so visible it should receive its own onscreen credit.
Consensus: Though it’s able to muster up some high-spirited, off the wall charm thanks to its endearing, rivalrous duo, Tom & Jerry ultimately wastes its two iconic animated leads in favor of following bland, uninteresting human characters and their equally bland, uninteresting storylines.
Silver Screen Fanatic’s Verdict: I give Tom & Jerry a D (★).
About Post Author
