Oh, for the love of butter, that would have been the movie's only Saving Gracy, but NOOOOO, They had to go with the gay guy from My Best Friend's Wedding.
Ok, a little lesson in psychology and biology, the heart doesn't control emotions, just blood transfer, and the stress . But the brain, which does crontol emotion and will, which is intact( although not clearly) .
***** 13:57 - 14:18: Unfortunately, Doug might have forgotten that Gadget DID have cartoon sound effects in his body like that in the original cartoon. Here's what it was originally before Don Adams: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cib3BNL92Wc.html#t=150 And here's what it was when they had Don Adams: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Vc1o13h4iBE.html&feature=player_detailpage#t=70 Also, 12:45 - 13:11: Why would Doug Walker think that, if Gadget himself was that dumb in the cartoon? With that said, I agree that the movie was an insult to the series, but I will say the 2015 reboot was better than the original... I would like to explain why, but I have a vlog to work on with my friend.
+Kale F. Haha same, but I'm not ashamed that I actually loved the movie. A kid doesn't think about the story structure as much as this reviewer does. It wasn't really a problem, or that bad of movie at least for kids. Wanna see a bad movie? See The Mask 2. Wait actually no please don't. It's way worse.
+Kale F. I remember watching it when I was 10 but not really having an opinion on it. Hell I don't even remember most of the story unless I think hard on it. When I was 6 however, I remember wanting the McDonald toys they had for this movie and instead of getting some radio or this one with gadget with the helicopter blades which I wanted I got Dr.Claw's claw. Was kind of cool I guess but I still didn't know what purpose it would serve as a toy.
My mom, a fan of the original show, hadn't seen this movie yet when it came on TV while we were flipping through channels. It's important to note that she's one of those people who likes to give even the worst of movies a chance and watch them all the way through. Even SHE couldn't stand this movie and stopped watching after 10 minutes.
But seriously, WHY the sound effects? I don't recall the cartoon Gadget doing stupid sounds every time he moved. And still, in-universe, it makes no sense for them to put sounds on him. Just because it's based on a cartoon, doesn't mean you have to make everything ridiculous and senseless. The cartoon had silly moments, but it managed to make a lot more sense than this tripe.
+Shadoboy *"Just because it's based on a cartoon, doesn't mean you have to make everything ridiculous and senseless. The cartoon had silly moments, but it managed to make a lot more sense than this tripe."* You just pointed out EXACTLY why live-action movies based on cartoons simply don't work and will never work. Period.
The Star Wars clip at 6:15 works on another level...the lady who plays Brenda in this movie is Carrie Fisher's sister. I guess they both can't help but get into wacky hijinks with gullible cyborgs! Anyway, Critic's hatred for Matthew Broderick is easily one of his best gags...
That's ok but I think that scene where mat says that line should be replaced with a scene with him either saying "Excuse me, I gotta get outta here" or just fall silent with a confused or terrified expression on his face, that would be a little more realistic but then again it's a cartoon based motion picture so anything goes.
Notice how in all the movies about 90s cartoons were always about the origins of the story/characters? The third Scooby doo movie was about how Shaggy got scooby and how the gang got together Powerpuff girls movie was about how the professor made the powerpuff girls Inspector Gadget movie is about how he got his 'powers' The Flintstones was very early on since it had Barney and Betty adopting bam bam Couldn't hollywood think of better ideas for movies other than how it all began?
well, those characters you've mentioned never acutally had a backstory( Powerpuffgirls had only the intro ). For them, the origin was actually the most original idea to come up with. Granted, many of them sucked ( except Powerpuffgirls )
Btw, actually in the show he's not supposed to be a cyborg. He's supposed to be inspector GADGET because he has gadgets. There's even one episode where he doesn't have his coat, so he can only use gadgets from his hat. Also even when they meet the professor in the show Penny says "he's the professor who gave you all your gadgets", she doesn't say turned you into a cyborg, and they never mention anything like that. Okay, he can stretch his neck and something like that, but still, it's never explained if he is an actual cyborg, and if so to what degree. The point is that it shouldn't be the focus of the plot, 'cause it's never explained in the show and it should be left that way, it's a mystery. The premise is the adventures of this detective full of gadgets and that's it. If you want to give us some backstory okay, but the show was never like that.
Prince Zuko heh, he was already upset by how poorly this one followed the cartoon. that one no only does an even worse job at following the cartoon, it doesn't even bother to keep up with the first movie. like they decided they where to serious and that the plot was to coherent for them. so the next one has to completely change most of the characters with little to no explanation as to why though they do lampshade some of claw's differences. they messed up gadget 2 even more then gadget 1.
I definetly agree with Doug at 07:10. As a kid, I imagined Dr.Claw looking very villainous (my brother though thought he only was an arm stuck on a chair because of the intro to the show). I never saw this movie but I did watch the sequel and Dr.Claw in that film looked also pretty far from my imagination, but his look made at least more sense than this version.
Actually believe it or not there was a toy that officially revealed what the original Dr. Claw from the show looked like. Google it. He's essentially a scowling intimidating old man
Nostalgia Critic really does think that Matthew Broderick is a bad actor. He has been in a few really crappy movies (Godzilla and Inspector Gadget), but that doesn't make him a bad actor. He has given good performances in films like War Games and Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
Did any of you ever realize he was Simba from the Lion King? Yeah. I've known of him for years thanks to Godzilla 98 but only recently realized that watching lion king for the first time in years.
See, this is why I don't watch movies based on things I loved as a child. "Inspector Gadget" (who was originally voiced by Don Adams) was also a nod to his most famous TV character, "Agent 86" on the most awesome of nostalgic TV Shows, _Get Smart_. "Penny" was basically like his "99"; The woman who was often to the side-lines, but obviously superior to him...saving the day but not really getting the credit she deserved. From what I can tell, the film did NOT stay faithful to the source material in this regard. It's especially unfortunate given that Michelle Trachtenberg is a far more talented actor than Mathew Broderick (See her performance as "Georgina Sparks" on _Gossip Girl_ if you don't believe me), and could have easily been the "Penny/99" character she SHOULD have been. I watched both _Get Smart_ and _Inspector Gadget_ religiously as a kid (They used to run _Get Smart_ on Saturday afternoon free-to-air back then). When I found out that Don Adams voiced "Inspector Gadget" the parallels between the shows were so obvious that even my primary-school aged mind could comprehend them. The saddest part about this is that Don Adams actually did the voice cameo for "Brain" in the end credits of this movie. That is one little factoid I wish I hadn't googled. *R.I.P. Don Adams:* I will always remember you for _Get Smart_ and the animated _Inspector Gadget_ series and how much I enjoyed watching them. You were a great actor with amazing comedic timing, who did a brilliant job of stepping into the subversive comedic role where the "macho male hero saves the day" trope gets turned on its head, but only the audience seemed to notice. I, like many others, were great fans of your work...even if it was produced decades before we were born. You'll be sorely missed.
+Mouse I watched the animated Inspector Gadget series religiously as a kid too. I remember sitting there after school eating my Spaghetti-O's and watching Gadget, haha.
fahd s The "Nooo! I gotta get out of here!" scene at 9:09 was so bad, and I thought Wiseau was the worst at acting, I'm actually surprised he got a rival there...
+fahd s I always thought the logical continuation of The Room would be a horror film where the ghost of Johnny haunted Lisa and Mark and tried to kill both of them. I can see the trailer now... Coming October 31st... "Haai babe. I have something fou' yoooou..." JUMPSCARE! "I AM TEARING YOU APART, LISA! ...Oh, hai Mark!" Cut to black. *The Room 2: Johnny's Revenge*
I remember advertising for this movie was all over the place when I was a kid. McDonald's gimmick was giving out toys that were part of Gadget's robotic body so kids would keep getting Happy Meals to get all the parts. My brother and I managed to get them all and build a full Gadget. What suckers we were.
I really loved the part where the Japanese man says, "This is why I left Tokyo" during the evil robot attack. That plus the minion recovery scene is pretty funny if you recognize anybody.
Poor Matthew Broderick, people will always talk about how bad he was in Godzilla but never how good he was in Ferris Bueller's Day Off or The Cable Guy
The Cable Guy is a way better movie than Inspector Gadget and I can agree that Broderick did a better performance in The Cable Guy than this. Also his other good performances in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Election, WarGames, Tower Heist and more!
Since a clip of Star Wars was shown, the woman who played Brenda in Inspector Gadget happened to be a much younger sister of Carrie Fisher (who I don't have to explain). Joely Fisher is her name.
I just realized... most of the time Doug''s main complaint is "That has already been done, be more original", but when adaptations try to put their own spin on things his complaint is "You are too original, try doing exactly what the cartoon did."
He's not saying trying to say be the cartoon, he's saying that they should respect the source material. When he says "That has already been done, be more original," he means that they should stop doing the stupid cliches and write a better script that doesn't pander to the audience.
There's a fine line. You change what doesn't work on the big screen / what doesn't work from the transition between animation and live action and keep what does. You can throw in your own artistic shit too but it can't clash with the source material (in this case the biggest use of this is showing Claw. Claw's character was a faceless, malicious threat that you basically could never catch and yet he's seen just ten minutes into the movie and for the rest of it after that. And he's played by a shithead.)
This is one of these movies that I hated even as a kid - and my favourite TV show back then were Power Rangers, so you can tell my standarts were really low.
stalk8r I LOVED BOTH Power Rangers AND Inspector Gadget movie when I was a kid, and even now. And what do you mean by low standards? Mighty Morphin The Show was great, and the movie was excellent.
+SteveDoidoUltimate I refuse to accept that mess as Claw. I mean, really? J. Jonah Jameson genetically spliced with Dr. Wily and harbouring a bad crack addiction is what that voice was coming out of and who that arm was attached to? Somehow I doubt it.
If I would've made Inspector Gadget, I would have focused it on Gadget's trauma of being turned into a cyborg(also, his gadgets would be effective Bond-type stuff). There could be a revelation that Claw and Gadget were friends who suffered in the SAME accident(Claw is cybernetic too, but on a much larger scale) and were taken in and 'altered' by different people. As the years went by, Gadget ended up being a force for good whilst Claw became a bitter maniac. I'm a 16-year old who knows jack squat about filmmaking so don't flame me.
I agree on Steve, but why not just have Frank Welker play/voice Claw? We're not supposed to see him, so why not have the original voice actor play him. Otherwise my vote for Claw is Andy Serkis
When he put Penny's Face on Young Bruce Wayne I lost my shit!! Especially the Cartoon sound effects on the Silence of the Lambs while the F.B.I agent was talking to Hannibal Lecter! Crying in Laughter!
I've seen it a million times yet i burst out laughing every goddamn time he does that matthew brodderick acting impression, easily one of my fav NC jokes of all time
Ah fuck another movie I watched as a kid that the Nostalgia Critic hates. Makes me feel stupid that I watched that movie. Wonder what he thought of the sequel.
Whenever Monty Python, Space Balls, Deadpool and Pinkie Pie do a better job at fourth wall jokes than Inspector Gadget, you know that's a bad sign for Inspector Gadget.
The movie version of _Inspector Gadget_ was a masterpiece fail in cinema. Seriously, the _Inspector Gadget_ show is not that hard to adapt, or improve for that matter! Each episode follows a pattern so rigidly it gets old after you're one quarter through! Obviously, a little twist to the pattern won't kill it. At the same time, this rigid pattern provides an outline for the overall makeup of anything _Inspector Gadget_ to follow. And yet, abiding by the pattern and yet screwing with it, and making something great, is not hard to do. The _Inspector Gadget_ movie was somehow capable of taking something that's rather overrated and making it flat-out _terrible_. How? Just how do you do that?!
Would you believe that this crappy film actually got a sequel? What lunatic actually thought that was a good idea?! F*cking early 2000's and it's absolute shit comedy
Well they after Baby Geniuses AND Ferngully got a sequels so nothing would ever surprise me if it got a sequel... unless I were to learn that their was a food fight 2, at that point I would slit my throat with a chainsaw.
"I think somebody's been watching too many Saturday morning cartoons." I think somebody's been watching too many Pinkie Pie. Yeah, I said it, what's up? Come at me, Bronies!
Trust me...you're not alone. I don't think it's even the fact that it's nut-grabbing that makes it particularly disturbing (although it is very strange seeing that in a Disney kids' movie), it's the fact that the scene is SO drawn out and not really done in a funny way at all...if the joke was a quick joke where Inspector Gadget grabs the man's balls and then we see a quick shot of the man in pain, it still would have been a forced joke, but at least it wouldn't have been as horrifying. But the fact that we see the man in pain for SO LONG and we see him being taken away to the hospital at the end of the scene while screaming out in agonizing pain, it makes the scene frightening. Also I find it odd that there's a shot of Inspector Gadget realizing what he's done, but he's not nearly as horrified as he should be, and we never see him trying to undo the damage.
dogsinthecathouse Thank you. And 13unner I was a kid. Puberty hadn't hit me yet. I knew nothing of how many nerve endings there were in your balls. It was completely unknown to me.
Regarding the "oil slick" scene, there were plenty of moments in the show where Gadget's gadgets would malfunction. The fact that toothpaste comes out instead of oil is probably an homage to such moments, probably the one thing they actually got right.
+Golden Freddy *Don't you ever touch a Black Car's radio* Tell me the difference between touching a black car's radio and a white car's radio and then talk to me about racism.
It's hard for me to imagine Inspector Gadget being from the 80s. I think it's because they kept showing reruns through a good chunk of the 90s. Which honestly happened with a lot of cartoons. Hell, they still show some of those cartoons today. (Which is great honestly, those shows were better than most cartoons nowadays, with the exception of a few obviously. Steven Universe is my current obsession.) I also quite like how they didn't even get Claw's ending line right. "I'll get you next time Gadget. I'll get you!". Like...REALLY? You COULDN'T even get the line correct? You got it HALF right, what the fuck? I honestly think they were just trying to be as wrong as they could. Also, with the recent obsession with Nostalgia and "retro" games. I'm kinda surprised they haven't given Mario another try for a movie. Honestly, I enjoyed the hell out of the original Mario Bros movie, mostly because it was Mario related and nostalgia, but still. I'd love to see them at least TRY a more accurate version. I could see them screwing it up horribly by trying to fit EVERY Mario related thing into a single movie. But if they made multiple movies, but kept them focused a bit better, they could be pretty good.
+TXF Here's the thing about the Mario movie. If you have a movie so bad the first time, nobody wants to give it a second try because nobody will trust it. Ever wonder why Eldest from the Eragon series never got a sequel? It's because the first movie was so disliked that nobody wants to act in a second one because no one will like it. While I do agree, it would be cool to see a better Mario movie, there's just not much plot for it, and not many people will probably watch it.
Bryden O'Neill While I understand that...for some movies. It's Mario. Horrible movie or not, people would flock to a Mario movie just for the novelty of seeing Mario in theaters. That's a huge reason people probably watched Pixels and Wreck it Ralph. Not to say they're good or bad movies, but a lot of people probably wouldn't have even seen them if not for the game characters that are involved.
TXF That is true. I guess we won't know how it would do until someone actually makes a second one Yeah. They both had interesting premises, but old characters was their main selling point
Leopold Litchenstein While it's true it was only rated 17% on Rotten Tomato, it definitely wasn't that bad. It wasn't a great movie, however it had a really cool idea and an exciting plot
I'm just saying this, but after hearing James Spader's voice as Ultron in the 'Avengers 2' trailers, I think he'd be perfect to play Dr. Claw if they ever do a new 'Inspector Gadget' movie; he'd make Claw more menacing.
Now Critic should get around to review _Inspector_ _Gadget_ _2_, which had French Stewart as Gadget, and, unlike this film, Claw's face is *_never_* shown.
I don't get why people hate the 2nd movie more. It's a lot more like the cartoon than the first movie, with Inspector Gadget being more stupid, Penny and Brain actually doing work, Dr. Claw's face hidden, having a scary voice and escaping in a flying machine at the end, as well as Chief Quimby blowing up (at the end of the movie), and yet people complain more...
I always imagined Dr. Claw looked like a Bond villain, mainly Blofeld, but also Alec Trevelyan or Jaws (with his whole lower jaw made of metal, which could explain his voice). But definitely not like a rejected "Mad Men" character with an oversized pliers for a hand.
Wait a minute... They seriously reached out to Don Adams (the original voice of Inspector Gadget)... AND THEY CAST HIM AS BRAIN. AND GAVE HIM ONE LINE. WTF?
it would be crazy if Mattew Broderick won an oscar in a movie with Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman ...HAHAHA that would be silly if that happened (Glory)
I have to ask, what spawned his hatred of Matthew Broderick? He was pretty perfect for the part of Leo Bloom in "The Producers"! And do I even have to mention "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? That movie is legendary. So what is it? Does he just find him annoying? Because that seems like a pretty strong reaction for mere annoyance!
"Day Off" may have been great, but Broderick wasn't, and it wasn't a difficult role. Any personality Bueller had came from the atmosphere and the way other characters reacted to him, not to the performance from Broderick himself, which was pretty dull. That movie probably would have been a lot better with someone else as Bueller.
What people fail to realize is that even though Inspector Gadget 2 was a bad movie, it at least followed the cartoon a hell of a lot better than that crappy first film.
3:34 You mean, like actual limbs...? When moving, you don't think, "Okay, time to move my left leg. So I lift this ligament first, tighten these muscles..." You just do it. There's no "thought" behind it, you just will it to move and it does.
Or give him a reason not to show his face- it may have been OK to show him before he got burnt or some other incident where you don't see his face :P xx
Fandango Pickle Hm... The new Inspector Gadget movie shouldn't use this continuity, but start fresh. Something like this: "Private Eye" Adam Johnson is a bumbling detective trying to keep his business up in detective work, but his own stupidity is preventing him from solving the small-time cases, and he ends up losing money instead. The only cases that he tends to solve are the ones that his niece, Penny, solves behind his back, and gives him credit so that he could get paid, unfortunately feeding him his ego in the process. One day while trying to find out if a man is cheating on his client's wife, he comes across a shady bunch on the streets that move to a back alleyway, arousing his curiosity, and he decides to take a peek what they are doing. The gang leads him to an abandoned building, where a laptop screen is on a table, showing a figure with a gruff, intimidating voice. Detective Johnson listens in and learns that the group that he followed are apart of an evil organization called MAD, who plan on stealing the most dangerous program to override all computer controlled weapons in the U.S.A., effectively terrorizing the world, and bring Dr. Claw to power. Johnson, being the bumbling moron he is, leans in too close and falls over, catching every crook in the room. After Claw yelling at his men to get the trespasser, Johnson runs for his life to his car. A small chase later, and Johnson is rammed off of the road, totaling his car, and nearly killing himself. In the hospital, he is told that his body is so heavily damaged, that he was going to die in less than a month. This reached the ears of a rather crazy looking passerby who was getting kicked out of the hospital for disturbing the patients. He manages to give the guards the slip and hides until Johnson's room was empty. He then made his move. The man introduces himself as Dr. Edward Garfield, a robotics and biology expert. He heard of his little situation there, and asked what he does for a living. Adam tells Garfield that he is a detective, and tells him what, who, and how about the incident. Taking all of this in, Garfield tells Adam that he could save his life with his machinery, as long as he agrees that he could... "tweak" some things to help him out. Adam thinks over this, and agrees to do so. After being taken to his lab, Garfield works immediately on his little project. A few days later, Adam is done getting repaired. Garfield shows him what he could do (and none of his stuff is impractical.) Adam, although sad he is no longer entirely human, thanks Garfield for saving his life. The bumbling buffoon goes on out to stop the evil organization, with Penny helping behind the scenes, while accidentally, and hilariously, stopping crime along the way. Did I mention that Penny helps, and Dr. Claw doesn't show his face? It's bad, but it's way better than this. (I'm sorry if it's a little adult and or dark, but dark is my kind of humor. :T)
Well to do it justice, at least the second movie followed more to the cartoon. It never refers to the Inspector as John Brown, the origins are never explained, and his personality does match the cartoon. Just saying :P
The Matthew Broderick Inspector Gadget was supposed to be a backstory film as to how Inspector Gadget and Dr. Claw became who they are today and that's the thing that ticked me off about this review because in my honest opinion, the film was pretty interesting...if it weren't so desperate for a laugh and horribly transitioned.
Even the backstory doesn't follow the cartoon it was based on though. The way the two movies were done, you could easily tell that they noticed the first movie didn't work because the second story obviously tried to copy the cartoon where as the first movie was no where near the cartoon. You can tell they never expected a sequel because there is such a dramatic change. Also if you notice, Penny doesn't call Gadget "Uncle Brown" in the second movie, whereas she wouldn't call him anything else in the first movie, despite how popular the name "Gadget" got.
"Two years as a security guard isn't enough to be a cop they said." Okay, if we're going to by Broderick's age at the time, 37, then I have to ask what was he doing before he was a security guard? Becoming a cop isn't one of things where you go, "Yeah, I'm going to be a cop! Not this paper pushing stuff anymore!" And yeah, no duh, having only two years of security guard experience isn't necessarily policemen materials. Matter of fact - why not have him as a cop to begin with? Make him a by-the-books cop who's still dorky and clumsy but has the good heart.
When I was little I really wanted one of the end credit scenes to cut to the REAL Dr. Claw, hidden, berating this movie's villain who was just taking the fall for the real criminal mastermind.
