Wayne Szalinzki, a wacky, absent-minded inventor, is back again but only this time he decides to use his infamous shrink machine just one more time. His wife Diane asks him to get rid of ... See full summary »
On the outskirts of Riverton, "The Safest City in America", a pensive Inspector Gadget sits in his Gadgetmobile, along with his canine companion, Brain. Gadget is back on the job, on stakeout, but he is concerned that everything is too quiet in Riverton. He has a very simple, rational answer to this; " it's always the most quiet just before criminals strike". Evil must be afoot. In a moment of overzealous crime fighting Gadget arrests an elderly women for wreckless driving, but not without incident. In his effort to make the arrest Gadget's many crime fighting "accessories" go wildly astray. It's time to report back to headquarters for a checkup. Baxter, the "Q" of the Police Department, delivers the prognosis - as he is a prototype things are bound to have some glitches. The remedy is close at hand. But, before Baxter can tell of his new "top secret", Gadget is confronted by a furious Chief Quimby. The little old lady arrested earlier for wreckless driving turns out to be Quimby's ... Written by
You say Inspector, I say Inspector -- Let's call the whole thing off!
"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 *****
7 of 9 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this