“Tom and Jerry” Review
Tom (left) and Jerry chase each other in “Tom and Jerry.” The film is the second theatrical adaptation of the duo following 1992’s “Tom and Jerry: The Movie.”
Of all the classic animated characters, like the Looney Tunes or Mickey Mouse, Tom and Jerry is the most bizarre cartoon to base a film off of. While 2021’s “Tom and Jerry” isn’t the first time these characters have been integrated into a film, it’s yet another example of a children’s film that only serves to be a mild distraction as opposed to a legitimate source of entertainment and inspiration for children.
Set in New York City, like most bad films centered on classic cartoons, the film stars Chlöe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester, a hotel worker who, along with other employees (Micheal Peña, Rob Delaney and Ken Jeong), must keep order in their hotel for a glamorous wedding of a major celebrity power couple (Colin Jost and Pallavi Shada). Oh, and the animated cat-and-mouse duo of Tom and Jerry occasionally pop up and do some slapstick.
I have many fond memories of when I was a child and my dad and little brother would watch the original classic Tom and Jerry shorts. They were not only funny, they were side-splitting and are some of the best pieces of slapstick ever put in animation. The love I have for these violent, hilarious cartoons makes it even more anger-inducing at this film which is meant to represent Tom and Jerry.
The story is every generic cliche from every generic kids film mixed together to form the most bland and uninteresting story. Not only does it lack originality, but, for a film titled “Tom and Jerry,” Tom and Jerry are hardly the main focus. Kayla is really the main character and, like every character in this film, there is nothing to her. She just meanders from place to place and tries to keep things peaceful in this hotel which isn’t especially exciting when nothing too ridiculous happens.
The original Tom and Jerry shorts are some of the best comedy ever seen in animation.
Tom and Jerry have a few scenes of them on their own doing slapstick, which are decent enough and got some laughs out of me, but most of the film has them interact with humans which goes incredibly poorly.
In a film like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” which also has two-dimensional cartoons interacting with humans, the audience believes that these animated characters really exist because the human actors in the film truly believe it. If Bob Hoskins acted like he wasn’t really seeing Roger, the film wouldn’t be the masterpiece that it is. In “Tom and Jerry,” every single cast member that is supposed to be looking and talking to Tom and Jerry look like they are completely lost.
The sad part is that most of the cast are incredibly funny in other projects, Moretz has done great work in “Kick Ass,” Micheal Peña is always welcomed in the “Ant-Man” films and Colin Jost is hilarious as both a writer and actor for “Saturday Night Live.” But all of the jokes they are given completely miss the mark. They’re either too juvenile or too dry to produce even a polite chuckle.
While Tom and Jerry’s slapstick is fine as a whole, it’s nowhere near as good as the original shorts because the animators don’t realize what makes slapstick funny. Slapstick has to look like it actually hurts and, in the original shorts, these cartoon characters were animated but also solid enough to make every blow feel real. In “Tom and Jerry,” these cartoon characters feel like they are made like stress toys that instantly snap back and are incapable of feeling pain.
To parents who are considering showing this to your children, just put on the original cartoons for an hour and a half. Not only would they be far more entertained, but these various shorts with different storylines are much more cohesive than anything this film gave me. As a lifelong Tom and Jerry fan, I wish this film was a person so I could comedically smash it with an oversized mallet. However, the film is so dull and lifeless that it just doesn’t seem worth it.
