Inspector Gadget

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.

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.

When security guard John Brown witnesses the murder of a famed robotic scientist, he gives chase, catches the perpetrator but is badly hurt in an explosion where the villain (known as the claw) escapes. He awakes to find himself rebuilt by the scientist's daughter and with all manner of gadgets at his disposal.

I watched this on a wet, cold generally miserable Sunday afternoon while I lazily did some ironing. I didn't expect much from it and I was surprised (and slightly ashamed) to find that I actually quite enjoyed it. The plot is nonsense and the action is all very silly and aimed at kids, but it does have it's tongue in it's cheek and seems to know that it's all just bit of dumb fun. As a result we have everything exaggerated for humour – whether it be Gadget's gadgets or the performances themselves, it is all playing to the adult audience saying `we know this is silly but bare with us'.

This may annoy many but I can quite enjoy a silly film as long as it acknowledges what it is and goes with it. The film had a few really good jokes in it as well as the odd movie reference or post-modern adult gag in it. My favourite bit was in the end credits, where a repentant henchman attends a henchman anonymous group meeting – in the crowd are various Bond villains including Jaws and Odd Job! While the film lacks the wit and sophistication of films that really play to kids and adults, this was still quite fun to watch even it is all was very silly.

The cast do a reasonable job with the material – again, all seeming to do it with a wink to the audience to acknowledge what we were thinking. Broderick is better than this, but is still OK in the role, he plays it fairly straight but is still amusing. Fisher has less to do and the voice of the Gadget Mobile is just a bad Chris Rock impression. The one character than dominates the film is Everett, he plays it so very OTT and knowing that he is fun to watch. He, like us, knows it is silly but is determined to have fun – I had fun watching him, whether he is hamming it up or dropping references (`Madonna'). He helped raise the film by simply playing to it's sole strength – that it's dumb but fun!

Overall this is not a great kids movie if you view it alongside cleverer movies such as Toy Story etc which serve both types of audience (kids/adults) equally well. However it still manages to be fun and, if you're in the mood for a dumb silly film where the comedy is slightly self-mocking then, while there's still much to be annoyed by, there's still some daft fun to be had.

First of all, I absolutely love the cartoon, it is a classic, and great fun for adults and kids alike. Unfortunately, while there are some redeeming qualities, Inspector Gadget, came across for me as dull, uninspired and disappointing. But it is not the worst movie ever, I did think Disaster Movie and Home Alone 4 were much worse.

There are some bright spots. One is the special effects, they were very very good and the best part of the movie. It is true that the film is a tad low on laughs, though the part when the thumb turns itself into a cigarette lighter does raise a chuckle or two. There are some terrific scenes involving Gadget's robot self, a car chase and a helicopter. And Joely Fisher is lovely as Brenda, and Rupert Everett, ever reliable, makes an entertaining Doctor Claw.

Unfortunately, that's where the positives end. I am in complete agreement with anyone who thinks that it could've been so much better. Matthew Broderick struggles to make a convincing enough title character, but I do think it is to do with the fact that the role of Inspector Gadget is badly underwritten. Having said that, the script is very weak, and lacks any sense of plot and drive, and the plot is rather slow moving and doesn't make much sense. Plus the editing was rather choppy.

Overall, a disappointing film, that could've been so much better. Had it been more faithful to the show, and had more of a sense of fun, it could have been a great film rather than a mediocre one. 4/10 for trying. Bethany Cox

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.