Inspector Gadget (1999)

Strictly for kids, this 1999 live-action feature version of the popular cartoon series seems long even at 80 minutes. As a video, it's easier to take and appreciate for what works best in the story: the special effects. Matthew Broderick plays the security guard who is physically transformed into a multi-use cyborg with a zillion attachments, from stilts to helicopter blades to skis. A crimefighter in raincoat and fedora, and equipped with a nifty Gadgetmobile, the hero investigates the death of a man linked to the villainous Sanford Scolex (Rupert Everett). Scolex, who blames Gadget for having to wear a prosthetic hand, develops an evil robot twin of the good inspector, causing much mischief and giving Broderick an opportunity to poke fun at his own performance of the virtuous Inspector. The action is shaky, the script plods along, and the effects soon take over; Everett has to go to the extremes of hamminess just to be seen above it. But children of a certain age will almost certainly engage with the more clever stuff and forgive the rest. --Tom Keogh Amazon.com

Good Movie

Mathew Brotheric is always a funny actor...good story and entertaining to watch with the whole family! August 24, 2008

Good Family Movie

My 5 year old son loves this and watches it often. Some of the mild violence needs to be explained to him, but this allows for a good "life lesson" on being nice and unacceptable behavior. Very entertaining! November 14, 2007

Bad Gadget. Bad Gadget.

Remember growing up and watching this oddly funny, inspirational show that dabbled in both the absurd, the diabolical, and the genius all at the same time. Don Adams of "Get Smart" fame wisely allowed his voice to be our uncanny hero, you know, the guy that couldn't save the day if his life depended on it, but thankfully had Penny and Brain there with him at all times to assist when needed. This was a part of my growing up, thinking that the Chief would, at any time, give me a self-destructing sheet of paper with my mission was always something I was dreaming for. Who else wanted to hold Penny's computer book for just one moment in our lives? Was I the only one hoping to one day catch a glimpse of Dr. Claw's face? If you are chanting "YES. YES. YES" along with me, then you are already aware of my feelings with Disney's debacle of a feature film presentation. Now, this isn't to say that there weren't elements that I found entertaining (gosh, am I saying this...), but overall this seemed to forget the foundation that it was built upon - even the perverse cameo at the end sent shivers up my spine. Where did the creators go wrong? Let's begin by saying that this was a concept, a cartoon, that Disney had no right placing their expensive hands into.

I was hooked at the beginning surprisingly. Why? I wanted to see the birth of Gadget and the reason why Claw and him were always pitted against each other. I wanted to see the creation of good and evil, but after twenty minutes, I saw Disney do what they do best. Matthew Broderick nervously steps into a role that he obviously wasn't ready for. He plays Gadget himself, a bumbling security cop who dreams of being a police officer. Due to Rupert Everett's whining and obvious lack of knowledge of who Dr. Claw is, the two find themselves crossing each others paths at a bio-technology lab where a new form of artificial intelligence is being designed. There is a pretty girl/scientist (played by Joely Fisher) whom John Brown (Broderick, pre-Gadget) pines for, but cannot win because he doesn't have the confidence to win her over. Well, we all know where this is headed next, and Disney lays it on thick as Broderick uses every torturous gadget in his disposal to eliminate ... not Dr. Claw, but a clone that is demolishing the city ... can he win? I can't give it away, though it would make you better film viewers if I just blurted the ending ... who would pay money for this plastic form of entertainment.

Alright, characters - there was no commentary on this film, so I only watched it once (thankfully!), but Broderick was the obvious stand out. He tried, I know I feel bad saying this, but he did try to bring some depth to this character. Gadget is a bumbling idiot - but he has a good heart. I thought Broderick was a good choice personality wise, but he never took Gadget to that next cinematic level. I wanted to have the foundation of the cartoon, but then grow into a feature film that had heart and dedication. In this mere 78 minute short film, there was nothing. So, on one side we have Gadget (Broderick doing his best), then on the other side we have the worst Hollywood idea ever - Rupert Everett as Dr. Claw. This was a hazard. This was Disney thinking they could take a enormously popular villain and give him a soul. This was Rupert needing to ham it up more than Broderick so that there was a share of the screen. There was no evil, there was no corruption, there was nothing that even faintly resembled the "Claw" that we grew up with. The henchman seemed more in tune than Everett. He wasn't funny, he wasn't sinister, he wasn't diabolical in any way. He was fluff, and that wasn't the Dr. Claw that I attempted to pay money to see. His portrayal was a disgrace to anyone that has ever even glanced at the cartoon. Arg, it makes me mad just to mention it in this review. Rupert Everett ruined Dr. Claw. Penny (Michelle Trachtenberg) seemed to follow the Everett style of "Gadet-ing", but not following her character at all. Shouldn't there have been a prerequisite to see the cartoon prior to making the film. Oh, filmmakers, how I shun thee.

I guess if one could literally pull themselves away from the hideous acting by Everett, the rest of the film just seemed raced and pushed. I was happy to see that it only lasted 78 minutes, and they did cover quite a bit of ground, but it just felt like they weren't willing to give the credit due to the cartoon. This was a cult cartoon, and to see Disney play for a younger audience, care nothing for the pre-existing older audience that grew up with Gadget, make jokes that seemed cliché, and bubble the bad guy. It was hard to watch. I was pleased with the script, the director tried to go dark with a really random Broderick attempting to play a darker, more fun character as Gadget's clone - but overall this film just lacked the spunk from the cartoon. I wanted animation, I wanted excitement, I wanted an adventure that would befuddle Adams himself, but instead I had a story that seemed like it would be in the dollar bin within the week of its release.

Overall, this film wasn't horrid. The story itself wasn't anything I could watch again, but their ability to not overextend the plot, made it for simple viewing. It was 78 minutes of filming that I didn't mind, but couldn't get myself to watch it again. I will forever hate Everett for what he did to Dr. Claw, I think Dr. Claw will forever hate Everett as well. His portrayal ruined this film. It knocked it to the ground with no opportunity to pick it up again. Broderick was watchable, but I don't think he was what this film needed. "Inspector Gadget" is a perfect example of what happens when Disney puts their hands into a project and is determined to ensure that children get laughs from semi-crass physical humor. This was a sad attempt of a film, but a part of me is happy that I watched it - now the cartoon seems better than ever!

Grade: ** out of ***** September 10, 2007

very good

it's a funny cool film if you havent seen it you dont know what your missing i havent seen the cartoon so i cant tell you what to expect but if you havent seen the cartoon to i dont think it's that bad to me in fact i think it was relly good i cant say you will like it but i think you shoud give it a try it even has a cool talking car the car even has a candy so my review is olmost over i hope you like it o and by the way it even has a evil villen November 24, 2006

lots of comedy, a bit of crime

This movie was not as good as the second gadget movie. It was funny, and that was the best part. Claw was a very bad villian, so I was into that. I like villians.

The first time that I wanted to rent it at blockbuster, my Dad thought that it may be inappropriate. Then he changed his mind. We watched it together, and like it very much. It was so good that I know own it on DVD. September 4, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...