John Brown is a bumbling but well-intentioned security guard who is badly injured in an explosion planned by an evil mastermind. He is taken to a laboratory, where Brenda, a leading robotics surgeon, replaces his damaged limbs with state-of-the-art gadgets and tools. Named "Inspector Gadget" by the press, John -- along with his niece, Penny, and her trusty dog, Brain -- uses his new powers to discover who was behind the explosion.
Another one rated too low, I assume that is due to it - so I read - not being "faithful" to the original television series. I have never watched that so I couldn't judge it in those terms, but as a film I enjoyed it I won't lie.
'Inspector Gadget' is very silly but self-aware, in a similar vein to 'Looney Tunes: Back in Action' and 'The Cat in the Hat'. I enjoyed those two films and, while this isn't as good as those, I liked this enough. I probably wont ever rewatch, but I can see younger audiences finding enjoyment with it.
There aren't, admittedly, any super noteworthy performances here, but that's not to say Matthew Broderick & Co. are bad in this - they give what's necessary. There's a few interesting cameos in there, too.
There are a couple of fairly amusing moments, but it's the dumbness that I think they do well - it's stupid and they know it. Like those other films I mentioned earlier, you're gonna annoy a lot of people by doing that so I can see why this gets hate - I don't think 44% is fair though, but each to their own of course.
**A film that entertains without marveling, and that can frustrate fans of the cartoon.**
Inspector Gadget was an amazing cartoon, but it had a brief stint on Portuguese television. I remember him, and I really enjoyed seeing him, but I don't remember seeing him much longer than four or five years. Despite this, it was one of the cartoons that I was most interested in as a child. The live-action movie we have here, however, doesn't do it justice... which doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. Plain and simple, the film is what it is: a piece of entertainment full of weaknesses.
Designed to appeal to children and teenagers, I have serious doubts about the film's ability to appeal to adults, particularly fans of the original cartoon. It's not a bad movie, it's minimally funny and has some effective comic material, but most of the time it fails to make you laugh. Also, the film has bad dialogue and the script is quite poor and poorly written. So poorly written that I'm afraid of spoiling it if I say too much, so I'll limit myself to saying that the film follows the creation of Inspector Gadget and the birth of his archenemy, Claw.
The cast is one of the most redeeming qualities of this film. Even with a basic story and very weak material on hand, each actor did the best they could, and I'm pretty sure they all tried to put in the effort and be professional. However, some did better than others. Rupert Everett, for example, makes the most of his charisma and steals our attention whenever he appears, with well-placed, sarcastic humour. Matthew Broderick doesn't do poorly in this job either, but he seems to find much more difficulties with his character. Joely Fisher is attractive but has little to do. Mike Hagerty and Michelle Trachtenberg are relegated to the shadows most of the time.
Disney invested some money in the film, and it shows in the quantity and quality of the visual effects and CGI used. Gadget is very similar to the original, with the same clothes and the most striking gadgets from the cartoon, as well as the problems, confusions and breakdowns that have always characterized the character. The sets and filming locations help and do their part, as does the soundtrack, which contains a new version of the old cartoon theme song.
