Loading...

Plot:

A remake of the television series, Matthew Broderick stars as Gadget, who suffers an accident at the beginning of the film, and befriends Brenda, a robotic surgeon who repairs Gadget so that he can defeat the villain Claw. In the meantime, Gadget and Brenda fall in love.

Also Known As: Bigyó felügyelő, Gadget, Go! Go! Gadget, Inspektor Gadzet, Inspector Gadget, Detektiv Gadget, Etsivä Gadget, Inspektorius Gadzetas, Inspectorul Gadget, Inspektor Gadget, Inspektor Gadžet 1, Müfettis Gadget, Инспектор Гаджет, Inspecteur Gadget, Inspetor Bugiganga, Inspektør Gadget, The Real Inspector Gadget, Αστυνόμος Σαΐνης, Astynomos Sainis

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • eugene-vaillant
    eugene vaillant

    What my heading for this comment is pretty much sums up what I think. They should have stayed faithful to the show more, and never have shown Claw’s face. The dog should have been cgi animated, or at least played some part in the plot. Same with the niece. Oh well, another wasted Disney effort, I guess, though the kids might get a kick out of it. 2/5 stars- JOHN

  • subbotin-sila-iakovlevich
    subbotin sila iakovlevich

    During the 1990’s in Hollywood, a funny thing happened. Studios began to suddenly think that by re-imagining previous cartoons as live-action films, they could stand to make a tidy little profit. The Walt Disney Studios got off to quite a huge start when their 1996 starring vehicle ‘George of the Jungle’ (taken from the cartoon of the same name by legendary creator Jay Ward) made upwards of $100 million. Suddenly, a new trend had caught on. But not wanting to stop there, Disney thought they’d try again. Though this time, with a hot cartoon property from the 1980’s, dubbed ‘Inspector Gadget.’The previews touted a fun, rollicking film, where Gadget would be a live-action crime-fighting ‘tool,’ complete with Gadgetcopter, extendo-legs, and much more. But aside from all the cool, techno-gadgetry, the film became the stuff of typical executive schlock. The town where our characters reside is colored so garish that you’d assume color-blind monkeys did the decorating work. What’s more, most of the plot devices that made the cartoon series memorable have been jettisoned in favor of a jive-talking Gadgetmobile with trademark-friendly sponsors, pop-up-video-style memory flashbacks, and more.What made the cartoon series work so well, was we never did learn most of the big questions, like ‘how did Gadget get his gadgets?’ ‘Why does Dr Claw hate Inspector Gadget?’ And even the most important one: ‘what does Claw look like?’For this film, those questions are answered for us, and it gets to the point where you just want them not to tell you these things.’Inspector Gadget’ is a throwaway summer film, as well as a mindless babysitter for when you need to do your laundry.what Disney Studios crafted here was something so brainless that parents most likely got bored while their children were held in place with cheap live-action gags and the usual round of fart and poop jokes.

  • kick-le-gulcher
    kick le gulcher

    I wouldn’t have said Matthew was the best role for Inspector Gadget, but after seeing the movie, I had a change of heart. Although it’s not really close to the original, it’s a funny interpretation of the character. I know it’s a Disney movie, but I do wish they didn’t make such corny jokes and were a little more serious from time to time. I like the addition of the Gadget mobile being a living car; He turned out to be a funny character! I also love Gadget’s origin story and crush on Brenda! They fit the character well. Although Penny and Brain ended up not doing much in the whole movie, which was a little disappointing. But, I did enjoy the fact Gadget was able to save the day on his own rather then receiving their help like he always does in the series. It shows even though he’s naive, he’s learning! I knew this movie was born to have a sequel, but the sequel was so awful I wish I could unsee it! Never watch the sequel, guys!!

  • herr-benedikt-kensy-b-a
    herr benedikt kensy b a

    Good movie. I’ve watched it since it came out, when I was 3. I think the movie is better than the tv series.

  • leon-troka
    leon troka

    I don’t think there has been a worse film to come around like this since Ski Patrol. I wanted to like it (Matthew Broderick is one of my favorite actors of the 90’s), but he is undermined by effects (some good, some pointless) and a Rupert Everett claw man. Only one part of this film is remotely watchable, that is the end where there is a seminar for bad guys including the metal mouth from the James Bond films and Mr. T. I reccomend that part to movie buffs, but thats it. If you are really interested though, just watch the cartoon version, which is at least reccomended for kids. Among the worst of the year (unfortunately). D+

  • eomjeongnam
    eomjeongnam

    This is a great treat for Inspector Gadget fans. Matthew Broderick makes a terrific Gadget. Michelle Trachtenberg does Penny justice, and they haven’t updated her at all. She’s just a very smart, cute little girl. There’s no annoying concessions to the nineties. Brain doesn’t talk–almost, but they’ve picked a very cunning-looking, adorable beagle for the part. Rupert Everett is suitably evil as Dr. Claw, and Joely Fisher portrays a believable love interest. The script honors the cartoon, and the gadgetry, most inventions from the source material, do not usurp the story or characterization which nicely portrays our heroes as simply nice people you’d love to have for your neighbors. Stay in your seat until the screen goes blank. Go-Go-Great!

  • vijy-krssnnmuurti
    vijy krssnnmuurti

    Wowzer! Overall, this is a very entertaining movie, one of the best kids’ films I’ve ever seen. Once Matthew Broderick is turned into “Inspector Gadget,” the film becomes very inventive with a lot of cool gadgets and a lot of neat things to see and hear (great movie for surround sound.)Broderick is a likable hero and even Rupert Everett as the villain is, too, producing some laughs. There are enough adult-type jokes to clever material to make this fun for us older folks. I’d have to say this is one of the better efforts ever by the Disney company.Broderick plays two roles, and is especially funny as the counterfeit Gadget with the fake teeth. The little girl in here is cute, too, and the talking car has some of the best lines of the film. At under 80 minutes, the film breezes by at good clip.

  • vsiliauskas-kornelija
    vsiliauskas kornelija

    This had “Disaster” written all over it; as Hollywood has plumbed television for so many of its recent films, the degree of quality has steadily dropped. So when you take a marginally funny kid show like INSPECTOR GADGET and put it on the big screen…well, let’s just say I was expecting another THE FLINTSTONES and leave it at that.I was wrong.INSPECTOR GADGET proves that if you treat your audience with respect, and don’t treat yourself or your subject matter too seriously, you can do nice things with film. The entire cast is wonderful, with notable performances from Broderick and Everett. It’s not going to win the Palme d’Or or any Academy awards (except, perhaps, an effects award or two), but GADGET has a lot of heart, and is well worth seeing on the big screen.

  • matiss-podnieks
    matiss podnieks

    I just took my 9 year old son to see this movie, we both laughed and had a good time. No it is not a great work of art, but it is a fun movie non the less. My 9 year old gave it two thumbs up. There are not many movies my kid and I can both enjoy, but this was one of them. Sure not true to the tv show, and I am not sure about Mr. Broderick, but the choice of Penny was great, and Ms. Fisher was a welcome addition to the caste. But over all I would say take your kids, to see it and have fun.

  • kristina-virtanen
    kristina virtanen

    Good funny movie for the family. I enjoyed it! Michelle Trachenberg was good in it. She however is not in the 2nd film being released on 2003. I can’t wait to see the 2nd one. The 2nd one is rated G also, so that one is probably better for younger kids. I recommend this movie if you like funny comedys with silly actions.

  • vicki-chavez
    vicki chavez

    i watched the original cartoon series as a kid and i can say that i loved it. when i first heard that the movie was being made, i got hyped. when i saw the movie i thought it was a master piece, but then i got it on tape and started comparing to the series,and my love for the movie slowly decreased, but i still liked it. the acting was fair, and the comedy OK, but my main problem was loyalty to the series. i liked for a while as a kid…. but seeing it many years later, makes me feel a little awkward. but still it was an OK movie, they could have been a little more loyal to the series, but i still think it was worth watching once. PS. compare this one to the SEQUEL, THEN YOU WILL KNOW TRUE SUCKAGE !!!

  • nadia-ramos
    nadia ramos

    Sure, it’s not a top rate film directed by Spielberg, but it’s a formula family film from Disney, so it’s gonna be chastised. Matthew Broderick probably wasn’t the best choice for Inspector Gadget, however he was better than French Stewart. The best part of the film was D.L. Hughley as the voice of the Gadgetmobile. And Rupert Everett was not so bad as Claw. However, the story wasn’t so great, nor was the writing. But again it is a formula Disney film, so you know what you’re getting into beforehand.

  • riyaa-ddhiingraa
    riyaa ddhiingraa

    Well. Where to begin. Let’s just say this; avoid this movie at allcosts. It’s based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon looklike Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to behere, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement tomake you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really thebottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick andRupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandonof men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance.”They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.Awful.

  • vlado-lah
    vlado lah

    Children and adults alike are decidedly ill served by “Inspector Gadget,” a frenetic but genuinely mirthless live action take on the popular Saturday morning cartoon series that mires poor Matthew Broderick in the role of a nerdish do-gooder who gets the chance to live out his heroic fantasies when he is converted into a one-man, self-contained crime fighting cybernetic arsenal.Thanks to current state-of-the-art special effects, the filmmakers manage to effectively translate the cartoonish aspects of the original to the live action format. Despite a few glaringly bad shots utilizing rear screen projection, the visuals that help to realize the infinite gadgets at the inspector’s disposal are genuinely jaw-dropping.What the movie makers couldn’t (or, at least, wouldn’t) come up with is a decent script – without which all the greatest special effects in the world cannot a quality film make. Gadget is surrounded by a gallery of dull, poorly written caricatures ranging from a giddy, self-absorbed mayor, to a gruff, shortsighted chief of police, and an effete mad scientist bent on creating an army of indestructible gadget warriors, with which, of course, he (ho hum) plans to rule the world. Even the newly “hipified” gadget mobile comes across as a charmless, grating irritant as he provides a constant stream of witless one-liners as running commentary to the action.Of the actors, Broderick and Rupert Everett cannot be faulted since both provide a degree of enthusiasm wholly unwarranted by the inferior screenplay with which they are saddled. For a perfect marriage of sophisticated writing and unsurpassable special effects, check out “Toy Story 2.” And see what “Inspector Gadget” might indeed have been.

  • alexander-filippov
    alexander filippov

    I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can’t solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says “Wowser”. It is and should always be “Wowsers”. It sounds lame with out the ‘s’. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn’t have the correct phrase.The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at. The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that “Brain isn’t in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof.” of course this isn’t laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won’t.

  • solveig-viklund
    solveig viklund

    Having heard a lot of bad reviews about this film, I expected it to be yet another disappointing attempt to transfer a good TV show to film. What’s more, i was never much of a fan of the original TV show.I am, however, a big fan of Matthew Broderick and Rupert Everett, and they don’t disappoint in the slightest. Both ham it up beautifully, and make the most of this film.The script is far from innovative, but it does have some very clever jokes. There are a few moments of smarmy “use your heart” dialogue, but, they’re thankfully kept to a minimum, and outnumbered by some more subversive lines.

  • kiss-viktoria
    kiss viktoria

    This movie is actually pretty good. It was much better than what most critics said. Now that is surprising though. Why? Because this was made by Disney, a studio (to put it nicely) I am really not fond of. Matthew Broderick does a good job as the title character (really). The other actors don’t play their characters as well as they could have. Moving to a more positive aspect, the special effects are another major highlight of the movie. Same for the action and fight scenes. As for the story, it’s okay. The story is pretty much a prequel to the animated series, showing Inspector Gadget’s origin. It’s far from perfect, but keep in mind this movie is based on a Saturday morning series from the eighties and intended for the kids. Thumbs up.

  • iain-o-sullivan
    iain o sullivan

    In between 1987 and 1990 (in between the ages of 5 and 8), “Inspector Gadget” was one TV show I couldn’t miss. It was a crucial show to my childhood. I was actually pretty open-minded when I saw the trailers and commercials and stuff for the movie. When I found out it was going to premiere on the Starz channel, I sat and watched, for about 15 to 20 minutes. Then I got up, left, and came back in time to see the ending credits. I was just dumbfounded. There were SO MANY things WRONG with this movie:1. Chief Quimby. In the cartoon, he would give Gadget his assignment, usually by popping up in the most bizarre of places (akin to “Get Smart’s” Agent 13). Once Gadget got his assignment, he’d toss the paper back to the chief. Of course, EVERY assignment ended with “This Message Will Self Destruct,” and when Gadget tossed the paper back at Quimby, KA-BLAM!!!! Usually when the assignment blew up in the chief’s face, he’d lose it. And that was about the only time you’d see Quimby lose it in the cartoon. In the movie, the chief was more uptight, and very bitter, and I think there were times where he HATED Gadget! By the end of the episode of the original cartoon, he would always praise Gadget for a job well done (not realizing it had been Penny and Brain that did the legwork).2. Matthew Broderick is definitely not a believable Gadget. Gadget is supposed to be a bumbling fool, and incompetent. Broderick’s portrayal kind of made him a little smarter than usual, but not very bumbling.3. Inspector Gadget Meets Knight Rider! Seriously, they turned the Gadget Mobile into a car that talked. Like KITT on “Knight Rider.” In the original cartoon, IT NEVER TALKED!!!! Was that trip REALLY necessary?4. Penny and Brain, or rather lack thereof. They’re my favorite characters from the original show, and the fact that they were barely in this ticked me off big time. That, and Penny in the cartoon is a 10/11 year old blond girl in pigtails. In the movie, she’s a brunette tween. I seem to remember at one point she was using the Top Secret Gadget phone to take a personal call from a friend. Penny and Brain are the ones who are supposed to solve the case. Such was not the situation in this movie.5. I didn’t like Gadget’s love interest in this for some reason. I don’t know why, she just rubbed me the wrong way.6. This last one was the biggest, and the thing that REALLY ground my gears over this movie. Why, why, WHY did they cast Rupert Everett as Dr. Claw?! And what was with the name “Claw?” It was always DOCTOR CLAW in the cartoon! Everett looked too young to be Dr. Claw, and above all: they showed his face throughout the whole picture! That is just wrong! You’re NOT supposed to SEE Dr. Claw’s face, people!!!!!Seriously, this movie made me wonder something: Did they even WATCH the original cartoon before they made this?

  • laszlo-magdolna-maria
    laszlo magdolna maria

    I used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of “Get Smart”. While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn’t make the grade.The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a “cartoon on film” it might have been enjoyable.As it exists it doesn’t deserve to be considered part of the “Gadget Legacy”.

  • daniel-sullivan
    daniel sullivan

    Film: Gadget’s real name is John Brown.Cartoon: His name really is Gadget. — Film: Claw’s real name is Sanford Scolex.Cartoon: His name really is Claw. — Film: Metro City is in the USA.Cartoon: Metro City is in Canada. — Film: Gadget works for the local police department.Cartoon: Gadget works for Interpol. — Film: Gadget used to be a security guard and was injured in an explosion.Cartoon: Gadget used to be a policeman and was injured when he slipped on a banana peel. — Film: Claw’s face is shown (and it looks nothing like the action figure).Cartoon: Claw’s face is never shown. — Film: Claw has a mechanical claw inplace of one of his hands.Cartoon: Claw has normal hands. — Film: Quimby hates Gadget for no reason.Cartoon: Quimby thinks Gadget is one of Interpol’s best inspectors. — Film: The Gadget Mobile can talk and has many gadgets.Cartoon: The Gadget Mobile can’t talk, can change from a police car to a van (and vice versa) and has only a few gadgets. — Film: Gadget was put back together by a team of surgeons.Cartoon: Gadget was put back together by one man; Professor Baxter. — Film: Claw is the head of Scolex Industries.Cartoon: Claw is the head of a criminal organization called MAD. — Film: Claw has two minions.Cartoon: Claw has hundreds of minions. — Film: Gadget has 60 gadgets.Cartoon: Gadget has 14,000 gadgets.

  • ernest-stan
    ernest stan

    Once again, Disney manages to make a children’s movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters – Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film – having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn’t help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney’s blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman – they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the “Claw” seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you’ll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it – but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness’s sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the “new” Gadgetmobile – it doesn’t look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it’s just the canonical “comic relief” figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief’s face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and “Claw” showing off. Someone should tell Disney that “children’s movie” doesn’t imply “total lack of any brain usage”. Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years… not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this.

  • ragnar-bruun
    ragnar bruun

    I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget’s Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.Another thing is that it’s too much “Good Guy v. Bad Guy” in the film. It’s not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn’t even remotely as funny.Tip for those who haven’t seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it’s a true classic.

  • alexandra-lutra
    alexandra lutra

    I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen — but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and ‘wowser!’ – what the hell is that?? It was ‘WOWSERS!!’.