Inspector Gadget 2 (2003)

Too much of everything

Instant Favorite.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Disney today has gone through multiple changes throughout its history. There's the classical period, the slump period, the renaissance period and the rise to super studio power in the late 2000s. However even during the 1990s when Disney was breaking records in its animated films, they also were breaking records in flops in another type of film. Those films were in live-action, many of which were derived from cartoons from decades before. For those cases, Disney had made some pretty bad films. Mr. Magoo (1997), George of the Jungle (1997) and Inspector Gadget (1999) being relatively the last bunch of theatrical releases to be made, for the most part signaled the end of such cartoon live-action adaptations. But even for Disney, nothing would stop the studio giant from making a little extra cash even after that. Some years later, Disney would release sequels to some of these movies and for the poorly adapted Inspector Gadget (1999), he too got his own. The question is, is it worth a watch?Ehhh,...in some respects yes because there seems to be improvement. Then again, there really was no need to begin with because a sequel will not make up for the mistakes of the first. With a script written by the director Alex Zamm (Chairman of the Board (1998), Tooth Fairy 2 (2012) and Jingle All the Way 2 (2014)) and two other writers, the adaptation part of the film is more faithful to that of the original cartoon. And for some viewers, that may be all they need because the entirety of the movie does feel more cartoonish than that of the first movie. When Dr. Claw (Tony Martin) escapes from prison, it's up to Inspector Gadget (French Stewart), his niece Penny (Caitlin Wachs) and newly activated member G2 (Elaine Hendrix) to bring the evil mastermind to justice. The idea is as routine as ever but it again sticks to the formula that made the cartoon what it was. Also what makes this film more faithful than the one before is that most of Dr. Claw's face is kept concealed from the audience. It was a big gripe people had with the 1999 film.As stated in the plot prior, much of the cast from the first film have been replaced or rewritten out. The only actor who didn't get replaced was D.L. Hughley as the Gadget Mobile; because people loved him the most? Also there's no mention of whatever happened to Joely Fisher's role as Brenda who played Gadget's love interest in the first movie. French Stuart as Gadget looks more like his cartoon counterpart than Matthew Broderick. Caitlin Wachs taking over Michelle Trachtenberg's role performed okay but nothing special. As for Claw, Tony Martin's portrayal Vs Rupert Everett is not hilariously funny but it's alright. Elaine Hendrix as G2 was okay even though her role was very contrived. It's pretty obvious what she serves as to Gadget. If there's one thing that stays true through this film is that almost every actor chews up the scenery around them. Almost every scene is super hammy. It's not bad occasionally or maybe for one character but even the less important characters are biting at the corners of every frame.With that being said, the comedy isn't that funny either. Thankfully, Disney toned down the inappropriate humor from the first film but didn't bother fix anything else. The one liners are formulaic and predictable but they do at least sound more believable being delivered from Stewart than Broderick. Dr. Claw also has a bunch of stock henchman that do act like the cartoon but here just feel silly. Of all things, why would Dr. Claw hire a single ninja? Also sometimes the dialog doesn't make a lot of sense due to certain characters having knowledge that goes unexplained. How would one specific character know how a mechanical device works if the villain didn't even give the obligatory exposition to them? The stretch of the imagination only goes so far. Seeing Dr. Claw make a weapon out of 3 or 4 non-connective items is one thing, but knowing how it works without even being told? Yeah,...not buying it.Even with this mediocre writing, there is still some visual integrity. The special effects to this entry are adequate for its budget even though they are not as polished as the first film. However considering it was 12 million Vs 75 million (estimated), that's not entirely bad. There are places where it's noticeably fake though. The cinematography shot by Geoffrey Wharton who is usually just a camera operator does okay here. There's no strange angles or up close facial zoom-ins so that's praiseworthy. Anything else though is just standard shooting. The musical score composed by Chris Hajian is okay too. Even though the sound is not as bombastic as John Debney's version of the first one, Hajian retains the Inspector Gadget theme and does what he can to make it sound acceptable for a DVD sequel. The overall product is still messy but some may like it more than the original film.Having its cast mainly replaced, the actors are a lot hammier, the comedy is still predictable and the effects do look somewhat cheaper. However some of the writing does follow the cartoon more this time than the first movie and although not everything makes sense it feels more like an extended cartoon episode. So that kind works in its favor.

And to think that a sequel was made. I was expecting better. The first Inspector Gadget was great. Matt Broderick and Rupert Everett delivered. This was a pathetic follow-up. They replaced Broderick with French Stewart, who did a rather poor job. They got rid of Joely Fisher's Brenda Bradford and replaced her with a poor rendition of Star Trek's character Data. Dr. Claw is back, but not portrayed by Rupert Everett. Instead, we're given a villain who is attempting to go for the gold and plans on ruling the world with it all. Not original. ANY VILLAIN WILL GO FOR RICHES AND BE INTENT ON THREATENING THE WORLD WITH SUPPOSED SUPERIORITY! The only actor that was brought back was D.L. Hughley, who voices the Gadgetmobile. However, modifications were made and did not make that particular character as entertaining or interesting as in the first film. Michelle Tratchenberg is replaced by a kid who wishes to tag along as a overenthusiastic sidekick. The animation, special effects, direction, photography, and story were all unoriginal and pathetic. If I'm being harsh, it's only because I liked the first better. If they make a third film with the same kind of stuff, I don't recommend it for anyone who's looking for a good time, the same with this film.0/10

When I first knew that French Stewart was playing Inspector Gadget, I thought, "great!". The cartoon Inspector Gadget had the voice, quirkiness and Klutziness that French Stewart had in his character of Harry from Third Rock From The Sun. Whan I watched Third Rock From the Sun before this sequel of Inspector Gadget came out, I thought Harry sounded just like Inspector Gadget. I thought when I saw the first version, he would have played a much better character than Matthew Broderick. Later, I was excited when I learned French had been cast for the role. However, my excitement turned to disappointment during the first few minutes of Inspector Gadget 2. Harry was more the Inspector Gadget character than the Inspector Gadget he played in this movie. He seems sedated, on a heavy dose of sleep inducing tranquilizers. If he had only played his "Harry" character in Inspector Gadget 2, French Stewart could've been a good Inspector Gadget. The film is bland, the story is dumb and boring. It's not worth the time to waste watching any of it.

in many ways,i thought this movie was not as good as the 1st.yes,it is truer to the animated show in many respects.in fact,id say it is too true to the cartoon.in this case,the cartoon does not translate too well into live action.in the 1st,they veered away from the cartoon quite a bit and that worked for me.in this movie, "Dr Claw" seemed way too over the top and not in a good way.the character sounded more stupid than anything.i think they tried too hard to make him seem evil and instead made him a caricature.the henchmen were dimwitted,just like the cartoon,but that seemed to work in this movie.most of the humour is of the type that young kids would find funny,but most adults probably wouldn't.as for the title character,i found he was was too idiotic(it worked in the cartoon,but not here),at 1st,but after awhile he became somewhat endearing.there are few things a liked about the movie.i liked the fact that Penny had a bigger role to play,and i also liked the fact that Gadget had some competition/decent romantic interest.overall,though,i didn't think this movie measured up to the original.though it had its moments.for me "Inspector Gadget 2" is a 6.5/10