vogonford
Joined Jan 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
vogonford's rating
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.
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.
I am a humongous nerd when it comes to World War II. I could babble on for days on just D-Day or the Great Patriotic War or many other things. I also have great respect for General George S. Patton. He is, by far, my favorite American general of all time. He wasn't the best, I'm sure there were better than him. But his personality and his style are so larger-than-life that Patton deserves a lot of attention.
I also like George C. Scott. He was the perfect man for the part, and was very true to it. Patton himself would have loved to see not only himself glorified but also Scott's portrayal of him, especially Scott's voice- a low, gruff manly voice, which was actually unlikes Patton's, a rather high-pitched voice which he detested, but Scott's voice is much more like Patton's character.
But my problem with the film is when the film was made- 1970. Had it been made ten years before or 20 years later it would have been far greater. But the fact that it was made in 1970 destroyed how great the movie could have been.
The reason? The fact that the message is anti-war. Some stories, such as Homer's "The Illiad" or Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" are meant to be anti-war. But with Patton it doesn't work. Patton LOVED war. He lived for war. War was his life. He feared dropping out of West Point because he wanted to be in the heat of battle. He was sad when both the World Wars ended because he was no longer in war. The 1920's and 30's were a terrible time for him because it was in peace. But since the movie Patton was made in 1970, the only way it was ever going to be a success was to have it have an anti-war message throughout the movie. Patton would have hated this.
If all the actors were alive today (especially George C. Scott), and they made it today, the film could be possibly one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, film ever made.
I also like George C. Scott. He was the perfect man for the part, and was very true to it. Patton himself would have loved to see not only himself glorified but also Scott's portrayal of him, especially Scott's voice- a low, gruff manly voice, which was actually unlikes Patton's, a rather high-pitched voice which he detested, but Scott's voice is much more like Patton's character.
But my problem with the film is when the film was made- 1970. Had it been made ten years before or 20 years later it would have been far greater. But the fact that it was made in 1970 destroyed how great the movie could have been.
The reason? The fact that the message is anti-war. Some stories, such as Homer's "The Illiad" or Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" are meant to be anti-war. But with Patton it doesn't work. Patton LOVED war. He lived for war. War was his life. He feared dropping out of West Point because he wanted to be in the heat of battle. He was sad when both the World Wars ended because he was no longer in war. The 1920's and 30's were a terrible time for him because it was in peace. But since the movie Patton was made in 1970, the only way it was ever going to be a success was to have it have an anti-war message throughout the movie. Patton would have hated this.
If all the actors were alive today (especially George C. Scott), and they made it today, the film could be possibly one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, film ever made.