IMDb user comments for
Inspector Gadget 2 (2003) (V)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

31 comments in total

---

11 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Absolute Garbage., 24 May 2006

Author: dprokop-1 from Canada

Man, this movie was worse than the reviews (and the reviews were really bad). I thought that the first was bad enough, but when I saw this I was shocked. I can't even believe that someone could make a movie this bad, I mean I could probably make a better movie with a camera about shoelaces. This movie was a big waste of time and I sooooooo regret watching it. If only I could give it 0 out of 10. Good thing Matthew Broderick didn't sign up for this movie cause then he would be completely humiliated and considered a bad actor. The only reason I rented this movie was to see if it was worse than the first, which sucked. Anyways, I don't recommend this movie to anyone unless you're a 3 - year old idiot who eats his snot.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
It was OK., 11 July 2003
Author: polenta3 from Chicago

It was ok, I liked the 1st one better, I never like it when they go and change the characters, theres just something wrong with that...and some of the deleted scences on the DVD should have been in the movie, it would have made more sense to me, plus alot of those scences included penny which she was a main character solving the crime (like usual if you think back to the cartoon) but they hardly show her enough working with brain, just one scene. I rented it, but definatly not worth buying or copying/seeing at the theater...I just rented it.

---

12 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I absolutley HATED this movie!, 17 June 2003
Author: Ericho from Hopefully not near a place that's showing this movie!!

Okay, I'm gonna admit it right here and now. I liked the first IG. I know most people hate it, but I thought it was a very nice little movie. But THIS. This was just plain silly!!

Nothing at all made any sense at all. Okay, now I thought in the first movie, John Brown/Inspector Gadget got a girlfriend, but WHERE IS SHE IN THIS MOVIE???!!! Second of all, how the heck could a human guy like IG fall in love with a robot??!!! What the heck where the writers thinking??!!!!! How could a human/robot breed with a robot?! ROBOTS HAVE NO REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS!!! The whole thing was totally whacked! And IG was just annoying in this movie!!! He was nothing but a smart-aleck know-it-all who was stupid and totally unfunny. Sheesh, what in the world happened to him after the first film?? And I hate what they did with Claw. How come in the first movie, he talked normal, but in this movie he has that wierd robot voice. Also, how come he turned into an old man? WHAT THE HECK WAS GOING ON HERE??!!!!

Overall, this movie was just dead awful to me. It made no sense at all. This piece of crap gets a big fat, 1/10!!! Once again, I apologize to "The Secret Of Nimh". This movie, along with MST3K's "Invasion Of The Neptune Men" were worse.

---

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Is that the guy from clockstoppers? Yes it is!, 11 December 2004

Author: xenophonnelson from Los Angelas, Cal

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Wow. I had no idea a movie could be so awful. I mean I've seen the Ed Wood movie Plan 9 from Outer Space, but this was just one of those"Are you F*%king kidding me" movies. I mean why did they even bother making this if Matthew Broderick wouldn't come back. If Ferris Bueller won't do it, there's probably not to much promise in it. About the movie, why didn't any of the criminals just smash the G2 robot-thing, I mean how hard can it be to whack her in the head with a lead pipe and wrap her up with some chains then tear her apart with crow bars. Why did they need to replace Inspector Gadget anyway, oh yeah, so they could at least have something to make a sequel about. Bad story gone worse describes this whole thing.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, 24 March 2008

Author: freakfire-1 from Texas, United States

French Stewart, we hardly knew ye. We hardly knew ye beyond the showe thou callest "Third Rock From The Sun". Because, let every viewer face it, it will be his only real success in his career. Everything else will pale in comparison.

Stewart, as Gadget, was weak. He arrests an old granny for going .3 mph over the speed limit. Kind of stupid and not even funny. The set up was all wrong. Plus enter G2 (Gadget 2), who is modeled as a woman, and Gadget likes her. For some reason, dumb robots fall for one another.

What is so screwed is is that the Claw from the first one is no longer there. So this feels like a cheap original and not a very cheap sequel. Nobody from the original is in the sequel. And that is sad.

Overall, its worse than the first. Sometimes shows should just be kept as cartoon and not turned into real life versions. And Inspector Gadget is such an example. "F"

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Why did they bother?, 15 September 2003
Author: ukcommando from London, England

I'm afraid I have to agree with much of Ericho's comments. This film just appeared shoddily made, and just looks like a budget price sequel compared to the first film which had Matt Broderick and Rupert Everett who frankly are in a different league to the acting in this film.

In the first live action film, Gadget was genuine and well intentioned, but a complete bumbler. In this film though, he just comes across as an arrogant, self-righteous, irritating pillock. His actions in the opening scenes of the film, persecuting an old granny for exceeding the speed limit by 0.3mph just destroy any sympathy for the character.

As for Claw, well they have attempted to bring the character more into line with the cartoon portrayal. Fair enough, but there's no explanation at all of how he has changed from the suave businessman Sanford Scolex of the first film into the shady character with the croaky voice in this. Also there's no menace at all in the acting of the character, which just appears to be some guy in a trenchcoat waving his claw around randomly, with a voiceover added later!

Also, what happened to Brenda Bradford who developed the Gadget technology with her Father? In the first flick, she was the love of Gadget's life and the film ended with them together, yet there's not even a mention of her in this film. Are filmakers so arrogant nowadays that they can't be bothered to provide even a flimsy explanation?

They really shouldn't have bothered making this, but it appears as though the studios are more than willing to dish out any rubbish to a child audience!

Mind you Elaine Hendrix does provide some eye candy as G2, but that's another matter........

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
not as good as original :(, 17 April 2003
Author: bdeschacht from UK

I preferred the original, mainly because the characters were better, since the actors where just right, and i don't care if it wasn't as close to the cartoon, the elements from the cartoon that were changed made the film better (the gadget mobile had a wise-ass attitude which was great). Like I said before, I think Matthew Broderick was loads better than the current Inspector Gadget and so was were all the rest they change (especially claw!) i have to say, see the first, its loads funnier.

---

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
MUCH more faithful the the cartoon!, 12 March 2003

Author: DesertHedgehog from USA

Although IG2 is a bit sillier than the first movie, it's MUCH more faithful to the cartoon - once again Gadget says "wowsers!" (compared to "wowser" in the first one) and Dr. Claw (called both Claw and Dr. Claw) is faceless again. There is also no "John Brown" - it's just Inspector Gadget. Penny, although she has different hairstyles throughout the film, often wears her hair in her trademark pigtails of the cartoon.

At first I thought that Elaine Hendrix would be awful as G2, but she proved me wrong. She played her part extremely well. Although French Stewart doesn't have the boyish charm of Matthew Broderick, he acts more like the Inspector Gadget of the cartoon. (And don't worry - he doesn't try to play Mr. Magoo!)

This movie is also amazingly cartoon-like. The best way I can describe it is a "live-action cartoon". It's live action, but with all the silly stunts of an animated cartoon. (Such as a scene involving Gadget getting his head stuck in a toilet.) Although the CGI wasn't as good as it could have been, it wasn't too awful.

If you're looking for a film that's true to the cartoon, IG2 is definitely worth seeing. Be warned, though, it's quite silly! :)

---

IG2 is local!, 31 October 2007
Author: Ella Ruiz from Logan, Australia

they showed this film the last weekend, and i agree with Loubear, two of Aussie's great actors featured within there and best of all, filmed in Brisbane! (just north of where i live) i was like, hang on, that looks like the Brisbane River, and the Storey Bridge, and Town Hall!" the scenery was all too familiar considering the university i go to is nearby - Well in Brissie!!!!

On the context of IG2, i guess it was okay, i watched it because there was nothing else on, and it was quite entertaining too, I found the fact that Sigrid Thorton and Mark Mitchell putting on American accents quite weird, but then again, i grew up watching Mark Mitchell pretending to be a Greek fruit shop owner and his wife, there's a first time for everything i guess

---

You say Inspector, I say Inspector -- Let's call the whole thing off!, 13 October 2007

Author: Andy (film-critic) from Bookseller of the Blue Ridge

"Inspector Gadget 2" is possibly one of the worst sequels to dawn the direct-to-DVD call tag at the bottom of the box. Using nothings from the original film (not the same characters, not the same style, not the same comic timing), this film is one that you have to watch alone, not standing right next to the original Broderick vehicle. French Stewart (he is always squinting ... why?), with the aid of director Alex Zamm try to bring the original concept back the the series without any known budget. Stewart brings a new Inspector to the film, a more arrogant, snobbish, seems to be tormented by life, protagonist that cares nothing for those surrounding him. He is a character that we cannot love, no matter how many times we have to sit through one viewing of this film. What is interesting about Stewart is that he is actually closer to the the animated Gadget than the original. Zamm also tries to create a Dr. Claw that is closer to the original – but the trouble occurs with the fact that the two share very little screen time and thus there is no real chemistry between the two. Claw used to always monitor Gadget's doings, in this one, there seems to be a haphazard care as to what either is doing. Penny still doesn't have her book and Brain still isn't getting anyone out of trouble. Where is the consistency here? Too add to the mix, we are introduced to a new character "G2", the newest upgrade to the Gadget line. Like anything this riddled with clichés, there is an initial problem with the two of them, but eventually a spark misfires and Gadget is introduced to yet another love interest. Considering the problems anatomically with this couple, there is no further spark between them. The only reason the two are put in a this film are to be together, not for any other purpose. There is no sense of individualism, just flimsy cause followed by an effect that could have been predicted before the opening credits ended.

"Inspector Gadget 2" has not seen the best reviews, nor will it get a good one from me – it tried, but ultimately it failed. There was no purpose to create this erroneous sequel. Disney was hoping to cash in on the Broderick fan base, the younger generation that knows no better , or just to make some extra dollars to pad their bottom line, but there was no reason to resurrect this already problematic series. I hated Elaine Hendrix's mesh between "Robocop" and "Judge Dredd". She was funny at parts that were not meant to be funny, and chokingly bad at parts that were meant to draw sympathy from the audience. Perhaps it was the writing, or the campy way that it was filmed, or the cheesy ploy to get audiences to laugh, but this sequel just left me out to dry. If I had to speak positively about this film in any way, I would have to comment on the CGI which did improve a bit with this lower-budget film. I thought the idea of "freezing-time" was a fun concept equal to what Claw would do, but again, we seemed to lack the spunk and originality of the cartoon. I would never consider this franchise a remake of the cartoon, but instead their own unoriginal spin-off.

I blame Disney a bit for this film because cutting corners and cost is not an excuse for making poor films. If Broderick or even the horrid Everett could not reprise their roles for this sequel, it should have just stopped there. Don't push a circular peg into a square hole, but instead we continued to push and found cheap replacements for the original. This is a very kid friendly moment that if I were 3, would probably find visually entertaining, but from a company that prides itself on making Oscar-worthy animation, I expect a higher level of distribution. French Stewart should stop working while he still is remembered for his humorous work on "Third Rock from the Sun", while the rest of this cast shouldn't even bother with another feature. I think it is bad enough that they couldn't even get Cheri Oteri back, cause, you know, she's expensive.

Overall, I have to say that "Inspector Gadget 2" is a blunderment of a film, and the one star review that I am giving it is generous. There is no need for these types of films to enter into mainstream cinema. It dulls the senses for those hoping to find engrossing cinema out there, and proves that a mind isn't necessary to watch French in action. As a cinematic community, we have to put a stop to this. Zamm attempted to retain some of the originality of the cartoon, but couldn't compile a cast good enough to bring the humor, form, grace, and talent of the animated series to light. There was no chemistry between anyone, and when the clichés began to cause a horrid avalanche, I was caught with nowhere to hide. If I had to end with a thought in mind, it would be this – Claw never showed his face, this can be learned from watching the pilot "Inspector Gadget" where he had a mustache, so you shouldn't be able to see his face in the films. It is simple. It would be like creating the Smurfs live-action where they were a shade of orange instead of blue. You just don't do it. So, when it comes to this film – just don't do it. You will be happier, and no so bitter like myself.

Grade: * out of *****

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history