Inspector Gadget (1999)

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Admirable film.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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

Inspector Gadget is a movie for those 13 and older and who like the slapstick comedy movies. No one said that it had to be like the cartoon and it really isn't. It is difficult to take a cartoon and make it into a movie. Everybody has different expectations as to the storyline and the character development. It is a story in its own right. It is a good movie for the family to watch together and get a good laugh. Matthew Broderick always reminds me of Ferris Bueller. So, his comedy is similar. It is an entertaining movie and goes well with either popcorn or pizza and a soda. So enjoy the movie for its entertaining value to put a smile on your face and have you forget about your troubles during the flick. Can't really ask for more of a comedy.

Inspector Gadget sucks so hard I don't even know where to begin. For starters, this movie is ONLY meant for VERY YOUNG kids. Even if that is so, they would probably have a hard time enjoying the visuals. This is one of the ugliest family movies ever made. The humour is humourless and dry, the acting is just bad, and for a kids movie, it sure is pretty dark. Disney screwed up big time with this soulless movie. Matthew Broderick was cast as the most annoying character possible: the title character himself. His character gets "fixed" after an accident; he is turned into a robot (at the beginning of the movie), or a cyborg, or something that we couldn't possibly care about.Also another thing in the movie is that Dr. Claw, the villain in the original Inspector Gadget TV show who never reveals his face, is clearly visible on screen most of the time, and he's just an ordinary looking guy. Nothing works in this movie. The show was never owned by Disney in the first place, but they bought the film rights to the show and lowered the show to Disney- fied levels. I never watched the show growing up, but I have seen some episodes and they were a lot better than the movie, even though the episodes were pretty standard.Avoid this piece of rubbish at all costs. It isn't worth your time or money. It deserves to rot away and be forgotten.

I never knew of the original Inspector Gadget cartoon until I watched this movie. In that case, once I saw the original I can understand why fans were disappointed with the outcome. This movie is very sloppy and some of its characters don't even follow the original screenplay. But with a little help with the special effects and some funny characters, it doesn't turn out to be so bad as its claimed to be. As the old saying goes, if you leave your brain at the door and take it as it is, it's a fun ride.Playing as the dim-witted inspector is Matthew Broderick, who I'll say is an interesting choice because he does his job well. But for an actor who has played other characters with more intelligence, seems like the clumsy Inspector Gadget is not the right choice for him. Especially if ten years before, Broderick starred in Glory (1989), one of the most influential movies in cinema history. Another flaw in this film is sticking Dr. Claw in the light; so he is finally visible to the viewer. Who thought of that idea? If he was a concealed mastermind in the cartoon, why would he want to come out a decade later? Dr. Claw is played by Rupert Everett who I think does a good job although his voice sounds nothing like the original. But he does have his funny moments. Dr. Claw's henchmen are funny too, and they help add to the goofiness in the screenplay.One thing I'm curious is to why director David Kellogg decided to have a love interest in this film. In the cartoon, Inspector Gadget had no time for a woman. Why does he need one now? Is it because it's a Disney movie and all Disney movies have to have romance in them? Love is not always needed to make a film successful. There were points in the movie that felt so cheesy when Inspector Gadget was talking to Brenda (played Joely Fisher). To me, that was one of the lower points in the film. I felt that it was unnecessary. The film already had enough female power in it, which was Penny, Gadget's niece.As for the effects, it is fun to watch all the utilities that Broderick tries to call upon. I don't even know what half of them would be used for and how they pertain to being a detective but that's what makes the movie fun to watch. For example when Gadget is at a ball and decides to listen on Brenda and Dr. Claw's conversation he places his ear on statue and starts walking as the cord stretches. And no one notices? How much more ridiculous could that get? Well it does but at least the public does not surround him too often. Another cool effect is the Gadgetmobile. Voiced by D.L. Hughley, the Gadgetmobile has a good number of wisecracks that'll keep the viewer laughing. This was one of the stronger points of the film. It was fun to see Broderick converse with the car. That car probably had the same amount of gizmos as did Inspector Gadget. As for everything else, the music was alright, there was nothing really special about it and the sound effects helped the film sound like it still was a cartoon (in a sense). For the most part I was satisfied with the end result. I didn't think it was a total waste, but there were some things that could've been left out and added in to make it better.The live action version of Inspector Gadget has eye-popping special effects and is quite goofy; perhaps too goofy. Though overall, it works as a kiddy film, nothing will bring it up to par with its origin of roots.