Inspector Gadget
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.25 You Save: $7.74 (77%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Inspector Gadget
Movie Review: Good Movie
Summary: 3 Stars
Mathew Brotheric is always a funny actor...good story and entertaining to watch with the whole family!Movie Review: Bad Gadget. Bad Gadget.
Summary: 2 Stars
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 *****
Movie Review: Same or different?
Summary: 2 Stars
The Disney movie: Inspector Gadget was release to DVD on December 7, 1999. Why was this release again? Is it because the studio put together the deleted scenes that we didn't see from the preview? If not then why? Most of the Americans would like to see the scenes that weren't on the whole plot if there was a special edition or a 10th anniversary edition for it since it's been 11 years when it was released or it can be a different number for an anniversary editionMovie Review: Go-go Gadget Hearthrob....uggh
Summary: 1 Stars
I grew up watching Inspector Gadget in the 1980's, and was always fascinated by Penny's computer book. Since I only had to make do with a now obsolete Commodore 64 computer system, I thought that one book was the coolest part of the show.
Sure, living with an uncle who you were smarter than would occasionally challenge the nerves, but Gadget (whose first name was never revealed) also seemed like a genuinely nice guy who tried to do the right thing.
Before she ruined Buffy, Michelle Trachtenberg defamed Penny. In this movie, she appears as a brunette who lacks a computer (book) or otherwise to help Uncle Gadget---and basically save the day. In fact, Trachtenberg is not doing much of anything during this screenplay.
Matthew Broderick's Gadget in contrast, is a ladies man. He meets up with Dr. Brenda Bradford (Joely Fisher) who ultimately is Robo Brenda. Since this is a family film, nothing bad happens but the idea of Inspector Gadget attracting anybody is really hard to take. He's SUPPOSED to be a bumbler who does not get the woman, the anti-James Bond for kids.
Chief Quimby's (Dabney Coleman) appearance also poses some problems. He is too old and too thin in this movie. Chief Quimby is supposed to be a rotund person with light brown hair.
Finally, the crucial part of Dr. Claw's sinister persona is that the audience only sees his hand. Rupert Everett is not supposed to show his face or have an actual claw for a hand. The studios could have saved bundles of their precious money (and made this screen play more authentic) by hiring a literal nobody to sit behind a chair and speak into a voice distorter while an animatronic MAD cat was giggling in agreement. According to the cartoon, Dr. Claw actually had a metal gloved hand with a spiked gold bracelet.
Since Andy Heyward oversaw production on both the earlier cartoon and then this movie, I am really shocked by the large discrepancies. If he cannot exercise product control over his own cartoon product, I really have no sympathy for this film's poor returns. The people who would have incentive to revive their franchise with a great live action film, blew it instead.
Movie Review: Avoid at all costs!
Summary: 1 Stars
This live action film is based on a popular and fondly remembered 1980's animated television series about a bumbling bionic police inspector who is aided by his young niece and their dog, the architects of his success.
All I can say is...wow, this remake was a disaster of epic proportions. Horrible, just ghastly. The problems, in a nutshell:
1. Somber content in an allegedly lighthearted film. A scientist is killed, a security guard is seriously injured and possibly dying, and neither event is treated with the gravity it deserves. No mourning for the dead scientist, and the serious injuries are played for laughs, as we see the security guard encased in a whole body cast, utterly helpless as a dog licks his mouth. Ugh.
2. A disturbing lack of ethics. Said security guard is surgically altered WITHOUT HIS CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE and changed into Inspector Gadget. And we're not talking about The Six Million Dollar Man here---this isn't a maimed human being who is enhanced by powerful, but otherwise normal appearing, prosthetics. This is a normal human being who is turned into a FREAK!
3. Awful casting. Matthew Broderick is not funny, charming, or even remotely sympathetic. And the film goes straight down the toilet when Matthew Broderick fights his evil double in a seemingly interminable battle sequence.
4. A changed premise. The original conceit---a bumbling adult secretly aided by a brilliant girl and dog---was altered in the live action version. The niece and dog have token roles, and Inspector Gadget is such an imbecile that he's painful to watch.
5. A wisecracking, jive talking car. Need I say more?
6. Commerical advertising unsuccessfully disguised as product placement. The scenes where a Yahoo billboard fell over (accompanied by the company's signature yodel) and carload of Skittles tumbled onto a sidewalk were as subtle as a sledgehammer.
Eye-gougingly awful, recommended only for your worst enemy.