Reviews & Ratings for
Inspector Gadget 2 (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

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

Index

38 reviews in total

---

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Is that the guy from clockstoppers? Yes it is!, 11 December 2004

Author: xenophonnelson from Los Angelas, Cal

*** This review 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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
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 *****

---

7 out of 10 people found the following review 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.

---

16 out of 28 people found the following review 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.

---

9 out of 15 people found the following review 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! :)

---

17 out of 31 people found the following review 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 review useful:
more of a cartoon turned movie then sequel, 20 January 2004

Author: Ash-Attack

if u look at this movie and you are a fan of the cartoon you will notice that this movie is very closer to the cartoon then the first one. that said it is just an avarage movie funny but too stupid and the lead actor French Stewart is bad but to be honest makes a better gadget them matthew broderick. claw is protrayed better by the director and writer.. for exsmple in the cartoon you never see claws face and he always escapes...

all in all so bits of this movie should have been in the first one and if they had it would have turned the first one into a better movie... it is fun but dont watch it as a sequel watch it as another adventure.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Very poor sequel to a mediocre film, 16 September 2009

Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom

The first film was a disappointing and mediocre film, but actually was reasonably entertaining. There has been the general impression that the sequel is better than the first film, but I can't agree. Yes, I accept it was more faithful than the brilliant cartoon show, but I still think it was a very poor sequel.

The script was very very weak, and even lower in laughs than the first film. I liked the idea of Dr Claw escaping from jail, but the pace of this film was way too fast, and lacked energy as well as felt rushed. And the editing was choppy, and the effects substandard.

The performances were pretty dire. French Stewart proves once again, like he did in the excrement that is Home Alone 4, that he falls well short of the charisma and energy of his character and came across as rather wooden. I didn't like Tony Martin's Dr Claw either. I much preferred Rupert Everett's suave take on the classic villain, and Martin hamming-up came close to embarrassing rather than entertaining. In fact, the only redeeming quality, and this is a slight one, is the talented Caitlin Wachs, who deserved better.

Overall, very poor, don't waste your time. 1/10 Bethany Cox

---

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
It's good. But Underrated., 24 September 2008

Author: mariomurderer111-1 from Australia

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really enjoyed watching this. There are 2 Inspector Gadget movies, the first one was made in 1999. This is the second one, but it doesn't continue from the 1st since it is a different director and it was released straight to DVD. This film is an alternative to the second film. If you didn't like the first film and wanted it to be more like the cartoons, then this one is for you. I liked both IG movies. This film introduces a new robot - IG2. The movie has an entire different cast, and Dr Claw's face is hardly ever seen like in the cartoons Nice special effects too, with a cartoon-like "let's stop the bad guys" ending. I find it funny and enjoyable.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly good, and in many ways better than the first, 30 July 2006

Author: Bob Greenwade (bobgreenwade) from Oregon, United States

I just saw this movie on DVD. Having previously seen the original, and been a fan of the original cartoon series, I was itching to see what was done.

Only one cast member from the first movie returned for this one: D. L. Hughly as the voice for the Gadgetmobile. French Stewart takes the title role from Matthew Broderick, and while Matthew's performance was one of the few weak performances of his career French nails the character dead-on. Tony Martin similarly nails The Claw over Rupert Everett's less-than-menacing performance. As for Caitlin Wachs versus Michelle Trachtenberg as Penny, I think the two are closely matched.

And in nearly every way, Elaine Hendrix is unbeatable in the role of G2.

Director Alex Zamm sought to bring the sequel closer in feel to the original series, and he achieves this with aplomb. The Inspector's enthusiastic idiocy, with Penny tagging along to bail him out, is the theme in what turns into a smörgåsbord of slapstick, visual puns, and other goodness.

Personally, I would have preferred to keep the "real name" of John Brown used in the first film (for scenes where using the name would have been logical, including the deleted "Penny at school" scene), but that's the only substantial change I would have suggested.

Not that the film is without weaknesses. Some "bits," such as the unfortunate toilet-cleaning scene, could have been substantially shortened, and a couple of the deleted scenes (seen on the DVD) would have helped the movie flow a little better. But on the whole it's a fun romp fit for the whole family.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

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

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