Inspector Gadget
Tags: good versus evil, cult, murder, violence, comic

Plot synopsis:
John Brown is a security guard working at the Bradford robotics laboratory in Riverton, Ohio, run by Artemus Bradford and his daughter Brenda, to whom John is attracted. Brenda and Artemus create a lifelike robotic foot as part of the Gadget Program, an organization for manufacturing computerized law enforcement officers. Sadistic tycoon Sanford Scolex attacks the lab, steals the foot, and has Artemus murdered before escaping in his limo. Brown chases him down in his Chevette and in the ensuing chase Scolex blows up the upside down wreck and leaves John for dead. A bowling ball coming from the blast of the Chevette crushes Scolex's hand, forcing him to replace it with a mechanical claw and taking the alias "Claw."
John barely survives the explosion, and due to his devotion to pursuing her father's killer, Brenda chooses him to be the first test subject for the Gadget Program. Under Brenda's guidance, John becomes Inspector Gadget, equipped with a variety of crimefighting and investigating tools, as well as a car named the Gadgetmobile run by an AI program. Claw, with the help of scientist Kramer and minion Sykes, plots to use the technology he stole to make robotic mercenaries to sell to the world. However he is unable to get the foot to function due to a control chip left in the lab. Police chief Quimby, seeing Gadget as merely a publicity stunt and not a true police officer, refuses to let him help on the Bradford case, causing Gadget to procure evidence on his own. With help from Penny, Gadget suspects Claw, who Brenda now works for. Claw uses Brenda's robotics research to manufacture a new control chip for his android, a robotic version of Gadget, "Robo-Gadget," and sets it loose to cause chaos in Riverton. Gadget infiltrates Claw's lab but is caught and deactivated, Claw crushing his control chip.
Brenda, Penny, her dog Brain, and the Gadgetmobile track Gadget to the junkyard but find him unresponsive. Brenda kisses him, and the power of Gadget's heart reanimates his body without the need for the control chip. After dropping Penny and Brain off at home, Gadget, Brenda and the Gadgetmobile give chase to Claw's limo. Gadget and Robo-Gadget are thrown off and do battle, ending with Gadget detaching Robo-Gadget's head. Gadget uses his helicopter hat to fly to Claw's headquarters, where he is planning to escape with Brenda via a helicopter. In the confrontation, Gadget uses an improvised weapon to forcibly activate Claw's claw, breaking the helicopter's control stick and causing it to go out of control. Gadget and Brenda use a parasol to escape safely, and Claw lands via parachute but is arrested by the police. Penny arrives with a guilt-stricken Sykes who surrenders the technology Claw stole from Brenda and has told Penny everything about Claw's plans. Saluted by Quimby, Gadget departs with Brenda and Penny as Claw vows revenge.
During the end credits, several afterscene clips play, including Sykes going to a minion-recovery group, and the Gadgetmobile addresses the audience till the end of the credits.

Review: 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.
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.
I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible.
Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off.
--- Film: Quimby hates Gadget for no reason.Cartoon: Quimby thinks Gadget is one of Interpol's best inspectors.
Afterwords I wished it had never been made.Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action!
If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy"..
I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid.
I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget.
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.
Matthew Broderick probably wasn't the best choice for Inspector Gadget, however he was better than French Stewart.
So when you take a marginally funny kid show like INSPECTOR GADGET and put it on the big screen...well, let's just say I was expecting another THE FLINTSTONES and leave it at that.I was wrong.INSPECTOR GADGET proves that if you treat your audience with respect, and don't treat yourself or your subject matter too seriously, you can do nice things with film.
Once Matthew Broderick is turned into "Inspector Gadget," the film becomes very inventive with a lot of cool gadgets and a lot of neat things to see and hear (great movie for surround sound.)Broderick is a likable hero and even Rupert Everett as the villain is, too, producing some laughs.
I'd have to say this is one of the better efforts ever by the Disney company.Broderick plays two roles, and is especially funny as the counterfeit Gadget with the fake teeth.
I wouldn't have said Matthew was the best role for Inspector Gadget, but after seeing the movie, I had a change of heart.
I like the addition of the Gadget mobile being a living car; He turned out to be a funny character!
I wanted to like it (Matthew Broderick is one of my favorite actors of the 90's), but he is undermined by effects (some good, some pointless) and a Rupert Everett claw man.
Though this time, with a hot cartoon property from the 1980's, dubbed 'Inspector Gadget.'The previews touted a fun, rollicking film, where Gadget would be a live-action crime-fighting 'tool,' complete with Gadgetcopter, extendo-legs, and much more.
What's more, most of the plot devices that made the cartoon series memorable have been jettisoned in favor of a jive-talking Gadgetmobile with trademark-friendly sponsors, pop-up-video-style memory flashbacks, and more.What made the cartoon series work so well, was we never did learn most of the big questions, like 'how did Gadget get his gadgets?' 'Why does Dr Claw hate Inspector Gadget?' And even the most important one: 'what does Claw look like?'For this film, those questions are answered for us, and it gets to the point where you just want them not to tell you these things.'Inspector Gadget' is a throwaway summer film, as well as a mindless babysitter for when you need to do your laundry.what Disney Studios crafted here was something so brainless that parents most likely got bored while their children were held in place with cheap live-action gags and the usual round of fart and poop jokes..
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie.
I was glad it was over.If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead.
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.
But in a sequel, he SHOULD NOT make any (which happened to IG2).I feel the casting, direction, comic content, SFX/ VFX all are really fine and blended perfectly to suit the sci-fi-comedy theme of the movie.I always liked Rupert in his role as Klaw - perfect for the villain needed against our hero.Bottom line: Disney had adapted, refined the story.
If you didnt see the cartoon Inspector Gadget, or arent a kid (or both) you wont appriciate this movie..
Better than Star Wars Episode 1 in some places.The movie itself is really for kids, but the jokes and special effects will endear themselves to adults as well.
Broderick does a good job as Gadget, and I was surprised to see Andy Dick in a kids movie..
I never knew of the original Inspector Gadget cartoon until I watched this movie.
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.
Dr. Claw is played by Rupert Everett who I think does a good job although his voice sounds nothing like the original.
There were points in the movie that felt so cheesy when Inspector Gadget was talking to Brenda (played Joely Fisher).
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 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.
Matthew Broderick isn't really an Inspector Gadget type he is cast wrong here, but I like him in everything I've seen him in.
The sequel is easily worse and it's too bad because I like the actor who played Inspector Gadget in that one.
This was one of my fav movies in my childhold it was the first time I have seen inspector gadget I did not see the cartoon later on when I was about 6 or 7.
The 80s cartoon series is given a god-awful big screen live-action treatment with Broderick as a heroic security guard badly injured that a scientist gives him a new body (RoboCop anyone?) - a machine that shoots out a variety of gadgets so he can fight a villain named Claw who has stolen a computer generated foot....whatever.
Broderick is an unconvincing Inspector Gadget, Everett shows a different side of him which we don't want to see (Claw really should have been masked) and that nasty little Tratchenberg should have been replaced with Kirsten Dunst or someone BETTER...Miscasts, hideous performances, lack of humor and an atrocious screenplay just kills this incoherent, irritating and mind-numbingly awful film that provides plenty of product placements.
One of my biggest problems with the movie was the fact that Matthew Broderick had never even SEEN the cartoon before he was signed to play the part.
Like Wild Wild West, this movie had a cool theme song, big name stars and incredible special effects, but in most ways, it was better.
Personally, I thought Broderick & Fisher did a nice job, but Rupert Everett seems to think that Gadget is still a cartoon.
The acting, humor, and special effects were all pretty good, but I'm not sure how the movie was aiming, either towards the kids or younger adults.
An operation turns the ordinary John Brown into the multi-parted Inspector Gadget.Watching the movie was like a trip down memory lane.
It's ok to make a joke that winks at the audience (such as the wonderful saturday morning cartoon reference) but to tell the audience and the character that it's a movie isn't funny.
I loved the 1999 movie Inspector Gadget.
I thought it was just as good as the cartoon TV show that I watched each Saturday movie when I was little.
In the movie John Brown (Matthew Broderick) works as a security guard and gets into an accident while trying to stop the evil Sanford Scolex/Dr. Claw (Rupert Everett) who murdered the father of Dr. Brenda Bradford (Joely Fisher) who happens to be John Brown's love interest.
I think Matthew Broderick (who's one of my favorite actors) did a fantastic job playing Inspector Gadget just like he did good as the voice of Adult Simba in Lion King.
Brown, who gets in a horrific car accident while trying to catch Claw, has irreparable tissue damage that can only be fixed by having alternate, technological gizmos put into his body effectively making him "Inspector Gadget." It's now up to him and his sly daughter Penny (a young Michele Trachtenberg) to stop him, allow justice to prevail, etc.The first problem is the pacing itself; the film moves so fast and so quickly that it could be the direct blame for young children with lower attention spans.
I laughed not a single time during the course of this film; desperation is almost never funny and that alone should be the encompassing message of Inspector Gadget.There's a term I use when describing unsubstantial movie affairs for children and that term is "fast food filmmaking." It's films that seem to only exist as a cash-grab for a kids-movie-deprived season, often raking in cash from parents who are looking for a quick little babysitter for their youngsters, and in return, they get a film that does nothing but that.
With that in mind, and the fact that they completely skewed the villain of the series and provided everything with a shamelessly half-baked treatment goes to show that this particular cinematic gadget needs more than a few tweaks; it needs reprogramming.Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Michelle Trachtenberg, Dabney Coleman, and D.
This movie is really fun to watch; Matthew Broderick was the right man to play the title role, and he actually looks the part, I don't know why most people beg to differ, and Rupert Everett is funny as Sanford Scolex (aka Dr. Claw), and is sinister enough to get you invested, but the problem with his character is that he doesn't actually pose as a menacing threat to the society or to Gadget himself, he's more of a smooth talker.
Overall, I like Inspector Gadget, and it's good for what it is, and enjoyable enough, especially if you liked it as a kid, if I were you, I wouldn't be so harsh towards the movie and just accept it as a stand- alone film.
If you hated this film, then you're probably not going to like this review because I'll start off by saying that I absolutely LOVED this movie.It wasn't without it's fault, but no movie is (unless it's 'The Shawshank Redemption').I'm a big fan of both 'Inspector Gadget' the cartoon and 'Get Smart', the 1960's television show it was trying to emulate.
I thought that Matthew Broderick did a fantastic job making Gadget his own character, rather than just copying what he saw from the cartoon.
I was pleased with the script, the director tried to go dark with a really random Broderick attempting to play a darker, more fun character as Gadget's clone  but overall this film just lacked the spunk from the cartoon.
i notice this movie has a pretty low user rating of 3.9,which is surprising to me.for sure it is a lite movie,with a bit of style and not too much substance.but i thought they did a lot of good thing with this movie.they veered off quite aways from the cartoon,which i think works in this movie.Inspector Gadget is shown as less inept than in the cartoon,and i thought Matthew Broderick portrayed the title character very well.i also thought the movie was funny for both kids and adults.Rupert Everett was a stroke of casting genius,in my opinion.he steals the shows in many scenes.i thought he was the perfect "Claw".his character is also very different from the animated show,but Everett really convinced me of his badness.the character also had some humour,another plus.the movie is rated "PG"but i think it's good entertainment for the whole family.8/10.
Webster's dictionary defines the word travesty as, "a crude, distorted, or ridiculous representation (of something)." You couldn't sum up this truly awful movie any better.I grew up watching the Inspector Gadget cartoon series in the 80s and sat down to watch this with my kids one night thinking it can't be that bad, right?
For the next hour and a half, I watched the producers of this movie completely rape the original before beating it unconscious and leaving its remains lying in the gutter.I'm not even going to bother listing the number of things that were wrong with this movie, the number of details they got wrong, the number of times I pointed at the TV and said "that's not how I remember it." It might have been slightly less gut-wrenching if they just gave it a new title and didn't pretend to base it on something the script-writers obviously never actually watched.And to top it off, it starred the hilariously unfunny Matthew Broderick, who has been grating my last nerve ever since he played Ferris Bueller (and for some reason, I'm still the only person I know who hates that movie).This was 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back and yet another example of just how low Disney can stoop.
Disney made many finest pictures indeed,in this particular comics hero Inspector Gadget the idea was full range of possibilities to explore and should become a great comics adaptation to start,but even have a great support from ultimate generation of special effects by computer all things didn't work properly,if all this wasn't to celebrate neither to throw in the trash can,watchable droven to kids and families audiences,a bit childish's taste for me,but in someway everyone has a child inside anyway!!!Resume:First watch: 2007 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 5.5.
One thing I did enjoy is the way current technology has allowed the film creators to incorporate all the effects from the cartoon and more into this movie.
My view on the movie version of Inspector Gadget.
However, when I found out it was a Disney movie and that it starred Matthew Broderick, I figured it's got to be pretty good.
I usually love Disney movies, but this one did nothing for me.Too bad, because I liked the idea of an Inspector Gadget film.
"Inspector Gadget" is not a great movie.
The film stars quite a few talented figures, like Matthew Broderick and Rupert Everett, but they're all completely wasted.Still, it's funny.
It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy "The Hughly's.""Inspector Gadget" is a movie that I found quite bad.
Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.In closing, I'd like to state that "Inspector Gadget" is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy.
"Inspector Gadget"Nothing brings about sweaty palms quite like a Disney live action movie event.
The latest in a string of Disney live action family films with no class and no respect to the viewer.If anything is inspired about "Inspector", it might be the casting of Matthew Broderick as our multi-gadgeted hero.
I would like to know why, in each of these cartoon or comic based movies, do we need to show the character foundations.
And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.BIG MISTAKE.
"Inspector Gadget" plays more like a commercial for the fast-food tie-in for a movie.
Broderick's antics and mannerisms are very like the original character of Inspector Gadget, and provide hilarious entertainment to all ages.
Great Cartoon turned into a bad Movie.
"Inspector Gadget" is one of the best jobs I've seen of making a movie out of a TV series, on par with the original "Addams Family".