IMDb > Scooby-Doo (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Scooby-Doo More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 53: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 523 reviews in total 

'Rooby, 'Raggy and Relma

Author: nixskits from Canada
8 December 2009

The thing about writing and posting comments for IMDb is at first the world is wide open and you can pontificate about just what you want. Not being allowed multiple comments for one entity, you have to pick and choose certain things for whatever you're going to give an opinion on. Many people are perhaps too harsh on some films and others too sentimental about their raves.

I was shocked there already were 482 comments for "Scooby Doo" and that the vote average is a pitiful 4.7 from 23916 different "Dooers". It's "loved it" filter kicks in at 4.7 also, so if you voted at least a 5, your BS can go on that rave record for the big screen version of so many now adults' fave cartoon from the olden days of animation (pre "The Simpsons"). And there are over 50 perfect 10 reviews for this live action craziness.

I adore Isla Fisher and Matthew Lillard as actors and Linda Cardellini is a goddess to me. Let's keep my thoughts about certain other people in this film under wraps for the time being. Lillard as "Shaggy" and Linda as "Velma" are as good as it gets for human incarnations of drawings. Their comic gifts are the saving grace of this far from perfect film.

Check out Linda's wonderful deleted scene where she belts out "You're Too Good To Be True". Is there another actress this versatile out there now? She's the modern update of the classic movie queen who could sing, dance and act.

The whole point of "Scooby Doo" is silly fun at nobody's expense, except for that little bastard Scrappy! Whoever came up with a fricking nephew for Scoob must have been freebasing too many "snacks" back in the 70s!

This film is suitable for little ones and any drug references should be dealt with by their parent(s), who probably had a bit of "Mary Jane" back in their teens. This movie isn't the downfall of civilization, it's a cartoon in human form.

Was the above review useful to you?

Such good fun

Author: sgtking from United States
25 July 2009

Many things that were popular in their day have made a comeback. In some cases this has been a success, but in others whatever was brought back for a new generation was something better left in the past. Cartoons are one of the few things to remain timeless. Each decade has their own brand of cartoon characters and shows and some have been brought back and updated, but again only sometimes successfully. From the late 1960s to the 1990s the Hanna-Barbera series 'Scooby Doo, Where Are You?' had been reinvented over and over in both cartoon and feature length formats. After 'The Flintstones' was made into a successful movie in 1994 it was only a matter of time before other shows got the same treatment. That day came for that lovable canine and his pals from Mystery, Inc. and fortunately it wasn't an embarrassment.

Pros: Cast does a bang-up job and seem to be really enjoying themselves. The filmmakers do a pretty good job of capturing the spirit of the show. Some amazing visual effects. Fast-paced. Humor is dopey, but amusing. Impressive production design. Beautiful island scenery. Fun set pieces. A really inspired twist that fans would go nuts over.

Cons: Some of the CGI doesn't hold up well. I understand that makers of the film were trying to cater to both the fans and the current generation of youngsters here, but they tried too hard. All the extras are wearing the latest styles and using popular teen lingo, plus we get an appearance by Pop band Sugar Ray and combined these really age the film.

Final thoughts: I know a rating of 8 out of 10 seems a bit generous, but I just can't help it. This movie is so much unpretentious fun and I just adore the original series and characters. Plus it's not at all poorly made. It demands nothing more than for us to kick back and be entertained and it works.

My rating: 4/5

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Jackson Booth-Millard from United Kingdom
19 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The only good things about this film are the amount of good actors, who waste their time hardly doing anything, the scene with Shaggy (Scream's Matthew Lillard) and Scooby-Doo (Neil Fanning) burping and farting, and that's probably it, from director Raja Gosnell (Home Alone 3, Big Momma's House). The rest of the film is just a repeat of the cartoon's capers with okay effects and a very boring story. Starring I Know What You Did Last Summer's Freddie Prinze Jr. as Fred Jones and Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne Blake, Linda Cardellini as Velma Dinkley, Rowan Atkinson as Emile Mondavarious, Spooky Island Owner, Isla Fisher as Mary Jane, Pamela Anderson and Scott Innes as Scrappy-Doo. I always hoped Scrappy wouldn't be in this film, but it's pretty interesting making him the villain, although they could have killed him. Scooby-Doo was number 8 on The 100 Greatest Kids' TV Shows, and he was number 49 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Adequate.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Cartoon Show Was Far Better

Author: BJJManchester from United Kingdom
9 April 2006

A very disappointing live-action version of the long-running TV cartoon franchise,which perhaps suggests it would've been a better idea keeping the concept as animation.The film actually gets off to a fair start,with the familiar fake ghost device which was used to such enjoyable effect in the TV shows,and even Pammy Anderson(who herself often looks so artificial in real life that she could easily pass as a cartoon character!)has a quite amusing cameo.Thereafter,the film saddles itself with a rambling uninteresting plot,a witless script,and banal and uninventive incident combined with not particularly impressive special effects which overwhelm any chance of interest in the characters.Matthew Lillard's performance is actually perfectly good considering the circumstances,but like all the other main parts,it is terribly underwritten.Capable and beautiful young actresses like Isla Fisher and Sarah Michelle Gellar(who is mostly reduced to indulging in sub-Buffy-like martial arts combat)are given no chance to shine,though this is not surprising given the dull,leaden dialogue they are given.The superb Rowan Atkinson is totally wasted in his part which had comic potential,and Scooby Doo himself is a considerable letdown,lacking the charm of his cartoon equivalent(the curiously hollow-eyed visage here makes him less sympathetic and even sinister on occasion).As for the ever-irritating Scrappy Doo,forget it.The film also has some especially dismal would-be jests about breaking wind and urinating,utterly out of context with this concept and it fails completely.

All in all,an over-produced effort which should've taken much more time on script and character,which generally the much,much less expensive old cartoon TV show did so to much more entertaining effect.More millions spent does not a superior version make.Definitely in this case.

Was the above review useful to you?

Good, not great

Author: Andrew Pilcher from United Kingdom
22 March 2006

Scooby Doo was, and still is, a cult icon. Nearly every person in the world knows of Scooby Doo the talking great Dane. The animated gang, Scooby, Shaggy, Fred, Daphne and yes even Velma have already made movies. A lot. All fully animated, all quirky and all brilliant. Now they are hitting the big screen as real life characters. I think the cast is perfect. More than perfect. They wanted a real life coupe, a.k.a, Freddie Prinze Jr and Sarah Michelle Geller, to play Daphne Blake and Fred Jones. Velma's character is fab too, just like the real cartoon. Not to mention Shaggy, he is the most life like. You can tell from the beginning that this was a high cost movie. But worth it man, worth it. Not enough people went to see this film. It's a breakthrough. You might be wondering, he loves it, he thinks it's the best, so how come he gave it a 7 out of 10, and entitled his review good, but not great. Well, the actual film is not that fab, it's worth buying, but it's not something that you would really want to watch every day, or even every week. 7 out of 10 is a suitable grade for a film as technological as this. But the plot is a bit iffy. The second is better. Just look at my review for that one.

Was the above review useful to you?

Scooby Doo is stupidoo!

Author: speedyspeaker from United States
11 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have always liked the original Scooby Doo, and when I heard that there was going to be a live-action movie of it, I thought that sounded kinda cool. But when I saw it, it was nothing like the original Scooby Doo. It was terrible… It was also very poor. The story was so idiotic. It went like this: the gang breaks up or something, then they win these tickets to an island and then rejoin and solve that the mystery culprit there all along was Scrappy Doo. But I kinda liked Scrappy. Why did they make him a bad guy? I guess people that he was annoying. The acting was so and so, the animation: to see a Great Dane go all computery, big deal. The music I forgot. So, over all, each film department stank, sorry! I was so embarrassed when I saw this film. It was nothing like Scooby Doo at all. There were lame jokes, dumb emotional scenes and all, yucky bathroom humor (BLECH!) and lots more thrash. So don't see it! It was so bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

Overall this is a pile of 'Doo' - it's good qualities are swamped by its bad qualities

Author: DaRick89 from Australia
10 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start this review by saying that, even when I was younger, I never really got into Scooby-Doo. I felt that it was a one-dimensional cartoon, the plot and ending were recycled about a thousand times over and it felt so 60's-ish. Even taking this into account, 'Scooby-Doo' the movie is a piece of c***, created solely to bring in some cash, not because the studio concerned (Warner Brothers) wanted to at least try to make a good movie. This is clearly shown by the choice of director, cast, etc. There are a few redeeming qualities, but they are swamped by the wretchedness of the rest of the film.

Anyway, on to the 'plot'. I put 'plot' in inverted commas because it is as flimsy as the plot for your average Scooby-Doo cartoon. You see, Fred takes all of the credit for the Scooby Gang's successes and Daphne's sick of being a 'damsel-in-distress' (more on this later), so the gang split up, leaving Shaggy and Scooby to languish over the mystery van. Two years later, they are reunited by Mondavrious, who is worried by teens attending his amusement park turning into zombies. Much derring-do occurs before the real villain is suddenly introduced and is (predictably) defeated. I don't feel at all guilty about spoiling the plot by the way, because there's precious little TO spoil.

Now, as a point of interest, the setting and also, the CGI. I don't usually mention the setting of movies, but the setting of Scooby-Doo is notable for it's cheap, neon, garish tackiness. It is at it's worst in the amusement park, where the garish colours, horrendous-looking CGI creatures, bright lights and the tackiness of all and sundry will make you: a) fast forward b) become violently ill c) have an epileptic seizure. To sum up what the amusement park looks like, I'm just going to utter Marilyn Manson several times. While I'm on the subject of CGI, Scooby-Doo himself is horribly conceived and looks worse than the Scooby-Doo of lore.

The acting is the best part of Scooby Doo, which is actually not saying that much. Linda Cardellini does a pretty good Velma, while Matthew Lillard has Shaggy's voice, look, facial expressions and personality down perfectly - even more praiseworthy considering that all he has to work with is a nonexistent CGI character. On the flipside, Freddie Prinze Jr., our washed-up one-dimensional pretty boy wannabe actor of the moment, screws up the role of Fred. I mean, how the hell do you screw up Fred?! He's MEANT to be bland and superficial! Truly remarkable. As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, she looks hot as, that's for sure. Unfortunately, she misses Daphne's personality completely, instead preferring to act like Buffy. She even participates in a laughable catfight with several men, but that's more the fault of the script. Her turn as a damsel-in-distress is truly unbelievable, even more so if you know about her martial arts skills. Also, what the hell is Rowan Atkinson doing in this movie? He is kind of amusing, but then again, he's amusing in just about everything he's in.

I'm going to load my conclusion with a list of Scooby clichés, which suits the movie and indeed, the entire franchise, since it is all so clichéd. So to sum up then, this is 'Scooby-Poo'. A note to the studio that released this mess: "I would have been so much more content with life if it weren't for you meddling studio hacks." I guess (or I hope) that you're thinking 'Scooby-Don't'. Zoinks! You know what? You're right. To milk more money out of the movie-going public, they released another one. Jinkies! Rhat Really Rucks! Like I said earlier, there are a few good qualities here, just that they are buried underneath all of the other 'Doo'.

1.5/5 stars

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Andy (film-critic) from Bookseller of the Blue Ridge
19 July 2005

This was not a great movie in any way, yet somehow there was something appealing to it which made it not the worst movie I have ever witnessed. You walk into this film with a level of expectancy. You want to see the same characters, stories, and clichéd moments that you did while watching the television show, and you do. The characters are creative, the story is very similar to the cartoon, and the clichéd moments are there in full force. Coming from a household that used to religiously watch this cartoon, I wanted this level of security, and I found it in this film. As a film watcher, I don't want to see the director of this film taking too many original risks and really destroying the culture of the cartoon. It stayed true to its roots, and for that you cannot fault this film. There were some humorous moments that made you think back to the cartoon, there were silly times where you just had to shrug and breathe in deeply, then there were some horrid moments that really just made you reach for the STOP button on your DVD player. Yet, I was expecting this. So, coming from an expectancy perspective, it was perfect. Coming from an entertainment value, it could have been a bit tighter.

To begin, the actors. I agree that a remake like this may not have garnished the cream of the crop of Hollywood hitters, but I believe we could have done a bit better than Freddy Prinze, Jr. and Matthew Lillard. Sarah Michelle Gellar, I believe, could have been better as well. Here we have some "C" level players who are a huge hit with the teen audiences, bringing to life characters, which were created during an older generation's time. It just seemed a bit jumbled to me. Then, to make matters even more confusing, we had the famed Rowan Atkinson as the sneaky Spooky Island owner. Disappointing acting coupled with the great Mr. Bean doesn't quite fit for me. He should have been used so much more to his potential. He could have stolen this film from the others and made it into his own, but for some strange reason, bland acting breeds more bland acting, so you can't expect much.

Outside of the acting, there isn't much else going on. Nearly everything that happens we have seen time and time again through the cartoons. Not much originality was brought into this film, while it felt like the money that should have gone to the creative department, was spent instead on sub-par CGI. Scooby looked horrible. I believe there was one instance where I could literally see right through him. Then, you have these un-storied creatures that look like Donnie Darko's rejects. Coupled with an annoying Scrappy-Doo. There was potential in the CGI, but it seemed as if they low-balled and went with cheap CGI to appease the smaller child audiences. The jokes needed to be planted deeper into the series. I remember watching The Brady Bunch movie and laughing because the jokes just seemed to play off the taboo of the series. I believe more focus on this with the Scooby-Doo movie would have raised this review another notch.

Overall, I felt cheap after watching this film. It wasn't a horrible film (though there was quite a bit of poor graphics and acting) because it gave you what you wanted when you walked in. It gave you a mystery, the clichéd and overused structure of the original series, and that final moment when the true villain is revealed. It followed a structure that I wanted, and I am "ok" with that for this film. Normally, I would have asked for better, but there are some cartoons that do not need their internal structure tampered with. Scooby-Doo was worth the one viewing, but I cannot say that I will ever be pleased to see it again. The fact that there was the horrendous farting contest in the center of the film destroyed the entire experience for me. That was the kind of humor I was not prepared for, nor did I feel it best represented the series. The Mark McGrath cameo also did it in for me, but that my friend … well … is another story. If you have never seen this film I suggest it once, but I do not feel that it needs a second viewing. Scooby-Doo is alive, but in an animated version that continues to create laughter and creativity … unlike this shoddy film.

Grade: *** out of *****

Was the above review useful to you?

Crap!!! (but adorable Sarah Michelle)

Author: Jim Inatti from Brooklyn Italian living in Florida
27 May 2005

There is only a good thing about this movie and her name is: Sarah Michelle Gellar.

I love Sarah Michelle but the movie sucks.

I like the seventies cartoon, but now when they made a movie of that, they couldn't do it worse.

The plot is so nonsense and so boring, the Scooby looks so fake, the ending so corny.. anyway i don't know what was the worst thing about the movie.

But only for one thing was good to see the movie, and as i said before, that was Sarah Michelle Gellar, the drop dead gorgeous beauty now with red hair, and with that dress looked super adorable, it was good to see her after been so bored watching the film.

So i'll give it 2/10, i would give it 1 but because Sarah Michelle i'll give it an extra point.

Was the above review useful to you?

Animated movie comes to life!

Author: Bob Peterson from Kettering, Ohio, U.S.A.
25 March 2005

My kids have this movie. I didn't think it would be good taking a movie that was a cartoon for many years and bringing it to life! It's a pretty decent movie with some pretty good acting! I liked Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne. I also liked Freddy Prinze Jr. as Freddy Jones. The story was about the gang that just finished yet another mystery. They all decide not to do any more mysteries together. We fast forward and see that they get invited to Mystery Island owned by Rowan Atkinson who is better known as Mr. Bean. I was very much into the story and enjoyed it from beginning to end! Definitely worth watching this one!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 53: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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