Inspecteur Gadget 2

I used to watch the Inspector Gadget Television show all of the time, and so going into the first movie I was hoping it would retain certain elements of the show. However, that first movie changed so much (the most notable being the odd reworking of Dr. Claw) that it didn't feel like Inspector Gadget anymore.

This movie, on the other hand, is excellent, because it discards trying to be in continuity with the first in order to be much more like the show. The character dynamic of the show (including the faceless villian) has been restored. Now, Gadget is once again a bumbling idiot who is saved only by those around him. At first I thought the inclusion of G2 would hamper the film, but her part is well integrated and this is still Gadget's movie. It's very funny, silly, and stylized, and probably good enough to have been in theaters. Forget about the continuity errors in relation to the first film, and enjoy live-action Gadget the way it should have been in the first place.

**** out of ****

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.

The first inspector gadget movie, ignored everything about the show and instead started its own thing. But with inspector gadget 2 they had all the elements, all the things that inspector gadget was about. Claw being hidden, penny solving the case, gadget being an idiot as usual ignoring the most obvious things, just like the cartoon. Although it isn't the best movie I've seen, its not the worst either, this movie is just a "MEH" in general, i can say this is more "inspector gadget" then the first movie was. So ignore the first one, watch this one. You can take the cartoon as this movies prequel, and let it just be about gadget finding a woman or whatever you want it to be this movie is inspector gadget, the other movie is inspector someone else

I preferred the original, mainly because the characters were better, since the actors where just right, and i don't care if it wasn't as close to the cartoon, the elements from the cartoon that were changed made the film better (the gadget mobile had a wise-ass attitude which was great). Like I said before, I think Matthew Broderick was loads better than the current Inspector Gadget and so was were all the rest they change (especially claw!) i have to say, see the first, its loads funnier.

I'm afraid I have to agree with much of Ericho's comments. This film just appeared shoddily made, and just looks like a budget price sequel compared to the first film which had Matt Broderick and Rupert Everett who frankly are in a different league to the acting in this film.

In the first live action film, Gadget was genuine and well intentioned, but a complete bumbler. In this film though, he just comes across as an arrogant, self-righteous, irritating pillock. His actions in the opening scenes of the film, persecuting an old granny for exceeding the speed limit by 0.3mph just destroy any sympathy for the character.

As for Claw, well they have attempted to bring the character more into line with the cartoon portrayal. Fair enough, but there's no explanation at all of how he has changed from the suave businessman Sanford Scolex of the first film into the shady character with the croaky voice in this. Also there's no menace at all in the acting of the character, which just appears to be some guy in a trenchcoat waving his claw around randomly, with a voiceover added later!

Also, what happened to Brenda Bradford who developed the Gadget technology with her Father? In the first flick, she was the love of Gadget's life and the film ended with them together, yet there's not even a mention of her in this film. Are filmakers so arrogant nowadays that they can't be bothered to provide even a flimsy explanation?

They really shouldn't have bothered making this, but it appears as though the studios are more than willing to dish out any rubbish to a child audience!

Mind you Elaine Hendrix does provide some eye candy as G2, but that's another matter........