All the whiz-bang gizmos and cool high-tech gadgets are back in Walt Disney Pictures a new live-action family comedy premiering only on Disney DVD and Video! Is it possible? Just when things were quieting down in Riverton, Claw stages a daring escape from prison. But "wowser," our favorite stumbling Inspector Gadget has just been put on probation by Chief Quimby for some ultra-honest mistakes. Nonetheless, the chase is on as Claw has his hands full plotting a new "Crime of the Century" that's pure gold, and the ever-political Mayor unveils G2 -- an all-robot, all-tech, all-girl, next generation of gadget policing. Could it get worse for our hero? What goes down next is the G-ticket of hair-raising, gadget-crazy mishaps, miscues, stakeouts, and showdowns as G1 and G2 try to go-go save the world with help from Brain, niece Penny, and the irrepressibly tricked-out Gadgetmobile!
1 Very cute, great movie
I'm not too sure what all the bad reviews are all about for this film. After "reviewing" them myself, I'm gathering that most think that this movie isn't quite "up to par" with previous Gadget movies. However, if you're like us and have only seen this one, then you'll love it! It's just full of neat surprises and look out for the toddlers in your house - they will just LOVE it. This is the only full-length movie my little one ever sat through and asked to watch again! He just loves all the gadgets and silly things the Inspector does and says. He's seen it so many times now that he can quote it and sing the songs. French Stewart has a natural aptitude for physical comedy and it really comes through in this movie. I appreciated seeing him in something besides "Third Rock from the Sun." This is definitely a little boy movie (toddler age) and older, and fun for girls too (Gadget's niece Penny is there to help solve the case).
I wouldn't pass on this one just because of expectations. Just watch it for what it is - it isn't a movie masterpiece but it wasn't intended for such acclaim. It was made to just sit back and have fun for an hour or so and that's what it does in a very wonderful, imaginative way. Highly recommend!
2 Why disney, why?
This movie is good but if I were you, I would rather watch th original. Disney changed some things that they shouldn't have changed.
1. They changed the actors for almost every character. Mathew Broderick did a better job doing Gadget.
2. The effects are terrible! They were much better in the original.
3. Claw's claw looked so fake!
4. They didn't show Claw's face. I know that they never showed Claw's face in the cartoon, but they showed his face in the original!
I'm not saying that this movie is really bad, but they could hvae done a better job. If an Inspector gadget 3 comes out, I'm gonna think twice about watching it.
3 Good, but what happened here?
This movie was Ok in some sort of ways, but why did Gadget fall in love with G2? Wasn't he in love with Brenda in Inspector Gadget 1? French Stewart made a better Gadget, but the 1st was way more funnier than this one. Why didn't it show in theatres either. I give this a 4 out of 5 since I'm nice.
4 Oh, the humanity... er, cyborgity!
A little known tidbit about the history of Philadelphia: Channel 48, once known under the call letters WKBS, liquidated their assets in 1983 due to increasing problems with their transmitter lease. The station signed off on August 29 -- but not before going out with a bang. Using the last of their resources, their final half-hour was used to broadcast the first episode of a never-before-seen cartoon, one that would serve to change, in it's own small way, the cultural landscape of America.
That cartoon was Inspector Gadget. (Incidentally, a Google search of the program's airdates lists the earliest known broadcast of the series as September 5, 1983. Channel 48 may not have bothered to log it's final program to the FCC -- but trust me, I was there. They had it first.)
The continuing adventures of the bumbling cybernetic detective hold a special place in my heart because of this strange and fateful day. Channel 48 was a beloved station -- for many of my school years they broadcast Pink Panther for two hours every day(!) as well as such wonderous cult 'toons as Tenessee Tuxedo. It was a crushing blow to my young heart to bid farewell to that old, treasured friend, but their maverick decision to end with the very first broadcast of Gadget was an fond, fitting tribute.
I watched Gadget on Channel 17, who picked it up the following year, religiously. Often I would rush home from school, determined not to miss the antics of the robotic constable, the case-cracking skills of his behind-the-scenes niece Penny and her dog Brain, and the sinister growl of the menacing Doctor Claw: "I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME, GADGET!"
So it was with a deep and abiding love that, when I spotted this film on the used DVD rack at my local record shop, I gladly forked over the twelve bucks to revisit my childhood one last time.
But instead, I ended up feeling like my inner child had been spanked and sent to bed without dinner. Dear Lord, this movie is terrible. Really, truly, terrible. Not a single redeeming quality about it. French Stewart may be the worst comedic actor known to humanity, accurately desribed by a friend of mine as "Like Kramer from Seinfeld, except not funny" -- I honestly think Carrot Top would have been a better choice, and I HATE Carrot Top. And though Eliane Hendrix provides that safe Disney level of mildly enticing sex appeal, her patently robotic acting is only barely forgiven by the fact that, well, she's LITERALLY playing a robot. And that incessantly unfunny car! Can we please have a modern comedy which doesn't try to infect some form of satirically cliched, urbanized Chris Rock Lite stupidity into it? Tupac is rolling over in his grave right now!
It's terrible. Disney has once again ruined the beloved characters of literary history, as they did with Hercules, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the Little Mermaid. Maybe I'm reaching a little there by putting Gadget in such notable, royal company, but if in my passion I take such liberties, I beg you all to forgive me my indulgence -- certainly it's not nearly as insulting as the liberty that Eisner and company have taken in turning our favorite stories into Technicolored tripe.
5 DISNEY'S WORST SEQUEL YET
When none of the original actors return to make a sequel except the voice of a talking car, you know something has to be wrong with the script. In this case, you'd be correct. French Stewart does not have the same boyish charm of Matthew Broderick in the original and the highly vaunted special effects are nothing more than pure cheese. The original had tremendous holes and seemed to be rather careless with plot and character development, but compared to its sequel it is nearly in the neighborhood with the Godfather and Casablanca.
6 INSPECTOR GADGET 2
My family and I watched the first Gadget and really liked it. We thought the second one was extremely painful to watch. We give it a definitive thumbs DOWN!
7 harmless fun
A straight to video live-action movie based on a cartoon? It sounds like a forgettable idea, but "Inspector Gadget" is actually masterful for its harmlessness - no gadgets or people were harmed in this flick. Here, the glitch-ridden Gadget inexplicably manages to keep Riverton so safe, that he's got nothing to do. With the evil Dr. Claw behind bars, Gadget is stuck pulling over speeders - including one who (of course) turns out to be Chief Quimby's mom. When Claw escapes - leaving hints that he's got a big job planned - Gadget goes on the case. Unfortunately, the Chief gives the job to Gadget's replacement - an all-woman, all-robot enforcer called "G2". For Gadget, it's love at first scan, but G2 has no interest. Gadget manages to only get in the way while Claw grows ever nearer to his goal of robbing the federal gold supply locked away in Riverton.
If it's not a laugh a minute, it's still fun for your kids, and it won't put you to sleep either. The FX aren't quite cutting edge, but they're not horrible either. In short, "Gadget 2" looks like it was more fun to make than to watch, but still fun to watch anyway.
8 Mindless Entertainment Kids Will Love
Inspector Gadget is bored. He's been so effective at fighting crime, there's no more crime for him to fight in the city of Riverton. He's been so effective, that the police department is proud to unleash G2, a new, all robot upgrade in the form of a female detective. While smitten with love at first sight, Gadget is crushed when G2 is assigned the case of the escaped Dr. Claw. With Penny's prodding's, he conducts his own investigation, but his glitches keep ruining the day. Will he keep his job? Will anyone ever catch Dr. Claw?
With all new actors (except D. L. Hughley as the voice of the Gadetmobile), this movie feels completely different from the first live action movie. On the plus side, they stuck more to the conventions of the cartoon series, such as hiding Dr. Claw's face. However, this movie doesn't have the humor of the original, relying mostly on slapstick to get laughs. While it works, adult fans of the original will be disappointed. The villain's plan is one of the most original means of committing a crime, and I loved watching the results once I finally figured out what they were up to.
Kids were obviously the target audience of this film, and they'll love watching Gadget bumble into one mess after another. Adults will be entertained as well, even if not to the extent that the first film led us to hope for.
9 Average
I saw this for the first time on the weekend, and while it's not really as bad as some would have you believe, it isn't that great, either.
To start with, it's hard to equate Matthew Broderick's Gadget, with the character played by French Stewart. Broderick put real life into Gadget, where Stewart played Gadget purely as a 2 dimensional cartoon character for 90% of the movie. The only time he came to life was near to the end, when Claw kidnapped Penny.
Just for the record, I thought that was a nice throw-back to the original cartoon. Penny was forever getting caught by MAD agents, though she was usually rescued by Brain, and not Gadget.
The emphasis on the glitches in Gadget's circuitry was a little confusing. In the cartoon, the so-called glitches were usually his gadgets doing the thinking for him. The Inspector was such a lame-brain (and I mean that in the fondest way) that he inevitably called on the wrong gadget for whatever situation he was in. So whenever a gadget popped out that was different to the one he called for, you could be fairly sure it was the right one to do the job.
In this movie, the glitches were just that - glitches.
And then, there's Claw. Rupert Everett did a fantastic job of playing Claw in the first film. It didn't matter that his face wasn't hidden, as was the case in the cartoon. It was pointless that they tried to do that in the second film. Aside from the shockingly awful voice, what they ended up with was an 'evil' version of Wilson from Home Improvement. It was just plain sad, given Everett's deliciously wicked performance in the original.
I'm not totally sure what to think of Elaine Hendrix's performance as G2. I suppose it was fine when you consider that she is basically supposed to be an emotionless android who slowly comes alive as the film progresses, but how can you feel anything for a character that is little more than a piece of wood for most of the movie? Like French Stewart's Gadget, she only came alive towards the end of the film, and by then it was too late.
There are positives to the movie. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough.
One is the fact that Penny is given considerably more importance in this movie. In the first, she was more of a sidekick than anything else, and that rankled the hardcore fans quite a bit.
The special effects were okay, but I'm afraid that's all I can say.
As an Aussie, it was interesting to see two Aussie actors hamming up the roles of Chief Quimby and the Mayor (Mark Mitchell and Sigrid Thornton, respectively), but even they didn't give the film much of a lift.
As another reviewer commented, one blessing was that the voice of the Gadgetmobile was the same. Unfortunately there just aren't enough other redeeming features to save what could have been a wonderful movie.
10 Harmless and That's All
Another direct-to-video sequel to the original "Inspector Gadget" is exactly what you expect. We have no Matthew Broderick, but French Stewart (imagine young Nathan Lane) as Inspector, and another one, a female version "G2" is added now. The concept of police detective with cartoonish gadgets to solve the case is not changed, and the story is again as corny and non-existent as before, but that we don't care.
I liked the first one, but not this one. One of the reasons is that in this sequel Inspector becomes the "last-year's model" which means here that he suffers humiliation because of many "glitches." That is, when he says, "Go go Gadget, Helicopter," something differnet appears from the top of his head. And the film seems to believe that it can make us laugh. We may if we are all very small kids.
To make matters worse, parents beware, some scenes are very annoying. Just one example. Somehow one famous fast-food compamy agreed with production placement, and at some party sequence this unlucky Inspector again and again experiences silly mulfunction (manupulated by the villain The Clow), and he sprinkles the fried potatoes all over the floor, and moreover, stomps on them spilling yellow mastard all over the place. Now if that's your idea of funny, see this one.
In short, besides the conventional ideas you have seen in this kind of films such as Nancy Drew-like girl or fast-talking car, the film only offers the tired ideas of comedy that was used in the silent film era, like the Keystone Cops. The difference is, THEY are funny.
The CGIs are suitably cartoon-like, I don't know whether its cheezy effects are intentional or not. (I see the name of Stan Winston in the end credit.) Some effects are certainly great, like the Matrix-like "freeze" shots, which is used in last year's "Clockstoppers" in which, by the way, the star of this film French Stewart can be seen.
Finally, G2, the female Gadget. I don't know what they wanted to do with this idea, because what she does is nothing remarkable. Actions are introduced, but badly shot with undoubtedly bad CGIs) and badly edited, killing any moments that could be interesting with her presence.
The film's ending suggests another sequel, which I politely decline to see. So, what's next? "G3: Gadget Kids"?
11 A RELAXING TIME
I enjoyed Inspector Gadget 2. I watched the first one with
my grandchildren and we got together again for # 2. It was
a fun time for all, as we watched Inspector Gadget try to
outshine his new lady love.
Full of great special effects, lots of gadgets and action, this
movie held the attention of the children, which is a plus in my
book. If you just want to relax, giggle a little, and not have to let our brain work overtime to figure out a movie, this one is
for you and your entire family.
12 For kids only
When I was a little tyke, I loved the "Inspector Gadget" cartoon show, with it's clever animation and slapstick.
I missed the first Inspector Gadget, but I saw plenty of trailers and commericals for G2.
And from those trailers and commericials, I pretty much figured out the whole movie.
Goofy Old Cop blows something, gets replaced by the New Cop. New Cop is aloof to Old Cop, who is trying to get back into the graces. Old Cop finds New cop attractive. Big Bad Guy comes in. Sweet Innocent is kidnapped, and Whole City at risk of Big Bad Guy's new weapon. New Cop and Old Cop team up, defeat Big Bad Guy, Sweet Innocent saved, and they live happily ever after. New Cop and Old Cop have a Sweet Kiss.
Yeah, adults really won't be too impressed, but their kids will love it, until they figure out simple-minded movies like this too.
13 Inspector Gadget 2
We watched the first Inspector Gadget movie and were disappointed. We weren't too sure that we were up for a second helping, but gave it a try. We were glad we did! The second movie moves along much quicker, is brighter and funnier. French Stewart gives Gadget much more heart than the original, and he is more entertaining to watch as he seems to have a natural affinity for physical comedy. We liked the mysterious Claw - more like the comics. The computer generated images popping out were great fun and the actors handled them well. Our kids are 7 and 8 years old and they followed the plot, and the humor, easily and had several laugh-out-loud moments. The many extras on the DVD provided more loud laughter and even interaction. This is a great movie for families, or anyone needing a laugh.
14 Inspector Gadget 2
My family and I watched the first Inspector Gadget and were disappointed. We weren't sure if we wanted to watch a second helping or not, but we gave it a try and we're glad we did! IG2 was funny, energetic, silly, and well done. We thought French Stewart played an endearing Inspector, we liked Claw's mysteriousness, and we enjoyed all of the computer generated images. Our kids are 7 and 8 years old and they followed the plot easily. They also understood most of the jokes and laughed out loud several times. We tried out all of the extras on the DVD and that provided even more laughing out loud moments for all of us. This movie was a winner.
15 Great -- much better than the original!
Everything about this movie surpasses the first one. It's funnier, it's faster, and it's much more interesting. French Stewart was perfect as Inspector Gadget. I like Matthew Broderick in many roles, but Stewart shows he really knows how this part should be played. In many ways, this sequel is much more faithful to the original cartoons than the first film, making Claw more interesting and the whole film more enjoyable. The effects were top-notch and they were matched by the script and the very talented, well-chosen cast. I can't say I liked the first Inspector Gadget film, but I really enjoyed Inspector Gadget 2.
16 Not bad but disappointing
I like many was disappointed with this movie. First off French- I MEAN FREE Stewart is not the kind of actor who should play IG. Matt Broderick was a perfect fit, he gave energy to the role, Stewart acts like wood. So does Elaine Hendrix who is supposed to be the COOL Gadget, instead both her and Stewart slump into The Home Depot and slack off because they are bored. That's my ... joke for today. Anyway, the movie is slightly ..., but I found some good in it. It was funny at some parts, but another thing I didn't enjoy was that you never saw Claw's face in IG2, but in IG1, Rupert Everett played him magnificently without a flaw as Claw. But now the guy that plays him was taken out of the BAD ACTORS OF ALL TIME Hall of Fame, and we get stuck with a bad Claw. There were only two actors that played their parts good and that was Caitlin Wachs who played Penny and D.L. Hughley (THE ONLY RETURNING MEMBER FROM THE FIRST MOVIE) as the Gadgetmobile. But in other words, the movie is good at most areas and it is good for all audiences and should be viewed as fluff, not an epic motion picture like Braveheart.Watch it with an open mind and enjoy!
17 Depressing.
Let's start with the film itself. Watching it gives you this dirty, dirty feeling that smoking a pack of Parliaments three years after having quit does. However, the cigarettes are cheaper and at least placate your vestigal addiction. The only thing 'Inspector Gadget 2' will placate is a souless, creatively hollow child who has been raised on nothing but american cheese and Pop-Tarts. This is why the movie did so well with American audiences under 12. As for quality, sure, the special effects are there, but they're par for the course and nothing your kids haven't already seen. The acting is as one-dimensional as unassembeled IKEA furniture, and is of similar quality as well. Elaine Hendrix (G2), who plays a vicious, condescending shrew better than anyone else (Romy and Michele's High School Reunion, The Parent Trap), screams for help and tries to do something with the role, but quickly realizes she can't. French Stewart whores himself out to the film's inaneness with a zeal that poor Ms. Hendrix is much too civilized to mimick.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just missing the point. But why would we ever subject our young to such an atrocious movie? I sincerely question the capabilities of any parent who would recommend this movie. Before all you minivan mothers out there bite me, keep in mind that it is not necessary to insult your child's intelligence for he or she to have a good time. If you insist on commenting how smart and how articulate your own 50-pound meatloaf is, at least do them justice and show them something fun that doesn't bite them back. At least 'Beauty and the Beast' doesn't have any product placement. Or even the original cartoon show, 'Inspector Gadget', which was not nearly as bad as the cinematic holocaust this movie turned our to be.
18 Go-Go get it! - Fun for kids of all ages!
I have to tell you, I don't understand anyone wanting matthew broderick back as inspector gadget! I thought the first movie was terrible and that he was so unconvincing and wooden in the role! French Stewart, on the other hand, hits just the right balance of robotic-ness and humanity and imbues the character with much more heart AND light-heartedness. Gadget and his bumbling through life are quickly endearing. His dexterity with physical humour shines brightly (and i don't think we've seen the last of it from this actor).
Elaine Hendrix ("The Parent Trap", "Superstar", etc.) does a wonderful job here as the new, improved, Gadget on the block, G2, who gets her "heart" from Gadget Version 1.0. her customing is brilliant with her electric blue eyes being brought out by her metallic blue leather gadget-suit.
The movie really MOVES, sounds and looks like a comic book come to life and, therefore, it's quite successful. A fun ride parents will enjoy taking with their kids. i know that we have enjoyed it more than once already! : )
19 BAD! Pass on this one!
This was so bad, Disney should be ashamed. The story is hard to follow and the characters are wooden with awful dialog. The effects look like they were done on someone's home computer. It's not even funny. ... Another direct-to-video mediocrity from a creatively impoverished corporation.
20 not good
this frankly smelled... but it would've been ok under a few conditions. (and not to mention consistent with the first one)
1) inspector gagdet should have been played by matthew broderick, in my opinion, he was and always will be the perfect gadget.
2) they should have had the lady whose father created him in the first movie, ig was supposed to fall in love with her, but they conpletely left her out in this movie!!!!
3) the special effects are TERRIBLE!!!!!!
4) dr. claw really bothered me in this one...
in short, ladies and gentlemen, this is, yet again, proof of how really desperate disney is.
