A remake of the television series, Matthew Broderick stars as Gadget, who suffers an accident at the beginning of the film, and befriends Brenda, a robotic surgeon who repairs Gadget so that he can defeat the villain Claw. In the meantime, Gadget and Brenda fall in love.
|Inspector Gadget Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 1021x554 px||Total Size: 800 Mb|
|Inspector Gadget Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x368 px||Total Size: 291 Mb||
I must admit. I was a huge fan of the cartoon series. Of course, I'm also ahuge Get Smart fan and Don Adams fan. This movie falls far short for me. Theproblem? It doesn't take itself serious enough to come off. There is a linebetween not taking yourself seriously and being too serious. Some moviesneed to be on one side of the line. Some need to be on other. This moviejust went way too far off the deep end.I won't say it's a bad movie for kids, but it's not a movie that most of thefamily will enjoy, IMHO.
After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopesforthis flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, badvisualeffects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless)product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadgetcarthing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of theirmind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of whenneeding a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin!
This video was nice. The special FX were very neat. The car was very awesome. Buy this video!
This review is from: Inspector Gadget (DVD) Old fishermen never die, they just smell like it.I can't say exactly the same for this movie but it still holds true that the good never die, they live on forever.I only wish Broderick had starred for the sequel too. The music is even more addicting than the show is and yet still worked out to be an animated series as well.TLC.
The word "trite" comes to mind when watching this. It was difficult watching such a thing that should be kept in the confines of animation. Instead, this real life version just makes everybody feel stupid for watching.I kept waiting for something that would make me get interested. Maybe the bad guy...maybe the Gadget program...or maybe somebody might die. Well somebody did die (which is a good thing), but it was a weak death scene that was unremarkable in everyway.No more please, no more.
I am only sixteen years old, so I was very young when it first cameout, I've seen this film approximately about twelve times and it hasbeen considered one of my most guiltless pleasures! Matthew Broderrickplays a fine role as Inspector "John Brown" Gadget, while RupertEverett (From Dunston Checks In) plays the role as The Bad Guy:Sandford Scorlexx! (Dr Claw!) Some people dislike this film (Especiallyfrom The 80s growing up with the show) because it doesn't resemble theshow very well and people who dislike slapstick humor will sure to hatethis movie. so don't expect it to be a masterpiece of film! The movieitself is great nostalgic fun, but from me being a 90s kid instead ofan 80s kid, The Show itself was before my time. Overall Rating: 5/10!
I'm truly torn about this movie. While parts of it were very funny......itreally wasn't Gadget. Having grown up on the cartoon....I missed Quimbygetting blown up...and Penny's book....and Where the HECK was MAD? Making"Claw"(another wincer) a businessman was just a bad idea.Matthew Broderick was at least likable, and The two best touches in themovie: Don West's voice, and the henchmen meeting.
What a joyless, fussy contraption of a movie!
My Take: Uses every special effect and slapstick on the book, butshifts from mildly amusing to totally lazy.Perhaps the one reason that there is a borderline between animation andreality is that once you take an animated concept and transport it intoflesh-and-blood reality, you lose not only the appeal, but their wholepoint of existence. There's a reason cartoons are never meant to bereal: They're just silly. But silly in that function that they aremeant to be entertainment. Kids (of all ages) love cartoons because ittakes their mind of reality. But once you make them as real as we aretakes a great risk. A risk these Hollywood producers seem to takehaphazardly. Just because they have the technology to make 'em, doesn'tmean you can capture their appeal. So it proves by the subject of thisreview: INSPECTOR GADGET.I never knew much of the original cartoons this movie claims to beinspired from, but I did know it exists and I did know it was acartoon, and I believe that's all you'll ever really need to know, Iguess. I never really got into the characters, but I still smellprecisely that INSPECTOR GADGET got it all wrong from the start. Thefirst hour devotes to where our cyborg-like hero came from, somethingthe original cartoon really shouldn't have time to do. That comes to nosurprise, the introduction is simply just a comedic rehash of ROBOCOP.Detective John Brown (Matthew Broderick) encounters an accident duringactive duty and needs to undergo an operation that requires mechanicalknots and bolts surgically attached to his body. Pretty soon, he's whathe calls himself a hardware store.You know the rest too. All he needs to do is say "Go, go gadget" andinstantly he has either a mechanical arm or an umbrella popping out ofhis hat. His ride is the talking Gadget Mobile. He also gets by with alittle help from his dear niece Penny (her played by MichelleTrachtenberg) and her little puppy Brain. And there's the evil villainDr. Claw (here played by Rupert Everett) who is also melded with amachine, this time turning his hand into a mechanical claw. You knowall these characters and these situations. What really lacks though, isthe appeal. And in the end, it's exactly what we demand. Broderick andEverett try their hardest in their roles, and they sometimes achievetheir goal, but they aren't given much more to do. Everett'sover-the-top performance leads to nowhere, which is a shame. The GadgetMobile is almost just as annoying as they say Jar Jar Binks is (thoughI pick Jar Jar's endless yapping compared to this). The moments ofsilliness would have been fine, in fact entertaining, if it were acartoon. Translating it to the big screen losses the charm. In the end,it only ends up silly. And silly is this movie all the way.Rating: ** out of 5.
what can I say about this movie? Stupid. It is another horribile Disney film. One of the worst movies ever. It deserves less then one star.
This movie was a brilliant adaption from the cartoon, which, though nowappearing rather daft, was the light of my childhood. Though certainpartiesfrom the original series were missed, e.g. the claw and his ugly cat, thefilmmakers did a good job. My biggest fear in watching this movie wasthatMatthew Broderick was a little young to play IG, but he did so ratherwell.Granted that this was a Disney movie, it was a little bit on theunbelievable side, but the series hardly was otherwise. Hugley'sperformanceas the gadget mobile was pretty damn good, a hell of a lot better thanhistelevision series.
When I first heard that there was going to be an Inspector Gadget movie, Icringed. And Matthew Broderick as Inspector Gadget?! Thehorror!Then I saw the preview, and I was amazed at the special effects. Betterthan Star Wars Episode 1 in some places.The movie itself is really for kids, but the jokes and special effects willendear themselves to adults as well. Broderick does a good job as Gadget,and I was surprised to see Andy Dick in a kids movie.
This is the worst live-action Disney feature since 1997's That Darn Cat remake!
The Â80s cartoon series is given a god-awful big screen live-actiontreatment with Broderick as a heroic security guard badly injured that ascientist gives him a new body (RoboCop anyone?) - a machine that shoots outa variety of gadgets so he can fight a villain named Claw who has stolen acomputer generated foot....whatever. Broderick is an unconvincing InspectorGadget, Everett shows a different side of him which we don't want to see(Claw really should have been masked) and that nasty little Tratchenbergshould have been replaced with Kirsten Dunst or someone BETTER...Miscasts,hideous performances, lack of humor and an atrocious screenplay just killsthis incoherent, irritating and mind-numbingly awful film that providesplenty of product placements. It's hard to believe that this one made $90million...and only lasted 78 minutes!
First off Broderick wasn't the best pick for Gadget, not sure who would be but he's kind of lame for the part. Anywho the movie was just pure fun and there's no real reasons to pick out little things wrong with it. Underrated movie everyone should see and just for the record the Inspector Gadget theme is the best theme in tv history go gadget go!
I saw this movie with my little brother, since both of us loved thecartoonseries. Now granted, it does have its good points. The special effectswere great, and staying along the lines of the original theme music wasdefinitely a good idea. The bad parts of this movie almost all came fromthe fact that the movie bore very little resemblance to the cartoon. Forone thing, Matthew Broderick is not a bad actor, but this just wasn't agoodpart for him. I mean, he didn't even try to do the voice right! Thebumbling, incompetent, extremely self-confident Inspector Gadget from thecartoon was way more funny. Dr. Claw was a disappointment too. How canhenot be, when they replace a scary, mysterious person with a snivelinglittlewimp? Penny and Brain and the Mad Agents being missing in action wasn't agood idea either. They made for the entire plot of the cartoon. Therewastoo much romance and confusing plot development and not enough humor. Theworst part of this movie though? The Gadgetmobile, hands down. With apersonality at least as obnoxious as those of Jar-Jar Binks andScrappy-Doo,I still can't see what the writers were thinking when they came up withthat. Take away Gadget's voice and personality, Dr. Claw's voice andpersonality, the antics of Penny and Brain, and the antics of the MadAgents, and there goes all the humor that really made that series what itwas. If they do remake this movie or make a sequel, I sincerely hope thatthey think more of the fans of the cartoon. To me, this movie seemed likeit was written by people who absolutely hated the cartoon and thought theycould improve it. Well they didn't.
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind oflesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, Idecided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV showinstead.The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problemswith this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem toexist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appearsthat Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV andtossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the moviebut the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too oldfor the youth humor but too young for any of the adulthumor).Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK fora very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybodyelse.
It was okay, but to some people the acting is not great and is not funny when inspector gadget makes a mistake. It's funny for little kids and adults that like movies.
When security guard John Brown witnesses the murder of a famed roboticscientist, he gives chase, catches the perpetrator but is badly hurt in anexplosion where the villain (known as the claw) escapes. He awakes to findhimself rebuilt by the scientist's daughter and with all manner of gadgetsat his disposal.I watched this on a wet, cold generally miserable Sunday afternoon while Ilazily did some ironing. I didn't expect much from it and I was surprised(and slightly ashamed) to find that I actually quite enjoyed it. The plotis nonsense and the action is all very silly and aimed at kids, but it doeshave it's tongue in it's cheek and seems to know that it's all just bit ofdumb fun. As a result we have everything exaggerated for humour Â whetherit be Gadget's gadgets or the performances themselves, it is all playing tothe adult audience saying `we know this is silly but bare withus'.This may annoy many but I can quite enjoy a silly film as long as itacknowledges what it is and goes with it. The film had a few really goodjokes in it as well as the odd movie reference or post-modern adult gag init. My favourite bit was in the end credits, where a repentant henchmanattends a henchman anonymous group meeting Â in the crowd are various Bondvillains including Jaws and Odd Job! While the film lacks the wit andsophistication of films that really play to kids and adults, this was stillquite fun to watch even it is all was very silly.The cast do a reasonable job with the material Â again, all seeming to do itwith a wink to the audience to acknowledge what we were thinking. Broderickis better than this, but is still OK in the role, he plays it fairlystraight but is still amusing. Fisher has less to do and the voice of theGadget Mobile is just a bad Chris Rock impression. The one character thandominates the film is Everett, he plays it so very OTT and knowing that heis fun to watch. He, like us, knows it is silly but is determined to havefun Â I had fun watching him, whether he is hamming it up or droppingreferences (`Madonna'). He helped raise the film by simply playing to it'ssole strength Â that it's dumb but fun!Overall this is not a great kids movie if you view it alongside cleverermovies such as Toy Story etc which serve both types of audience(kids/adults) equally well. However it still manages to be fun and, ifyou're in the mood for a dumb silly film where the comedy is slightlyself-mocking then, while there's still much to be annoyed by, there's stillsome daft fun to be had.
Inspector Gadget is a flawed mishap that is hardly funny and is only mildly intriguing to the film's preposterous story.