Inspector Gadget 2

"Inspect the unexpected."

2003 1h 29m EN

💀

4.2

SKIP

★4.2TMDB · 422

ActionAdventureComedyFamily

Synopsis

Spoiler shield

After capturing Claw, all the criminals have gone into hiding. Until Claw escapes! Gadget thinks he will get the case, but everyone else has other plans. A new version of the Gadget project is unveiled in the form of G2. Strict orders are given for Gadget to stay away from G2 and every crime scene, but Gadget feels he is needed more than anyone.

“Inspect the unexpected.”

WhatsApp X Facebook Telegram

Where to watch · US

Disney PlusSubscription

Amazon VideoRent

Apple TV StoreRent

Google Play MoviesRent

Google Play MoviesBuy

YouTubeBuy

Fandango At HomeBuy

Cast

French Stewart
John Brown / Inspector Gadget
Elaine Hendrix
G2
Tony Martin
Sanford Scolex / Dr. Claw
Caitlin Wachs
Penny
Mark Mitchell
Chief Quimby
Sigrid Thornton
Mayor Wilson
Bruce Spence
Baxter
Alethea McGrath
Mrs. Quimby

Credits

Behind the camera

Director: Alex Zamm
Writers: Ron Anderson, William Robertson, Alex Zamm
Languages: English
Countries: United States of America

Want more? Switch to Cinephile mode in the header for DP, composer, budget, box office, production companies, keywords, and release history.

Did you know?

Fun facts 🍿

1 / 8

RUNTIME

Did you know

89 minutes exactly — the "classic feature" runtime most directors aim for.

MoodPlayr · trivia#01

2 / 8

ERA

Did you know

Released 23 years ago.

MoodPlayr · trivia#02

3 / 8

CINEMA

Did you know

Part of the "Inspector Gadget Collection" — so the characters or world continue elsewhere.

MoodPlayr · trivia#03

4 / 8

DIRECTOR

Did you know

Directed by Alex Zamm, shot by Geoffrey Wharton. Note their partnership — DPs and directors often return to each other across a career.

MoodPlayr · trivia#04

5 / 8

DIRECTOR

Did you know

Original score by Chris Hajian. Worth a dedicated listen after — most great films lose half their impact without the score.

MoodPlayr · trivia#05

6 / 8

DIRECTOR

Did you know

Editor Jimmy Hill shaped the rhythm. On an edit-heavy film, the editor does more to control your pulse than the director.

MoodPlayr · trivia#06

7 / 8

CAST

Did you know

French Stewart and Elaine Hendrix and Tony Martin carry the top of the cast.

MoodPlayr · trivia#07

8 / 8

FACT

Did you know

Marketing tagline: "Inspect the unexpected.".

MoodPlayr · trivia#08

Cinephile deep dive

The take

Alex Zamm directs. Geoffrey Wharton behind the camera. Chris Hajian scores. Jimmy Hill cuts. Runs lean at under 100 minutes. Produced in United States of America. Dialogue in English.

Trivia

Things worth knowing

189 minutes exactly — the "classic feature" runtime most directors aim for.
2Released 23 years ago.
3Part of the "Inspector Gadget Collection" — so the characters or world continue elsewhere.
4Directed by Alex Zamm, shot by Geoffrey Wharton. Note their partnership — DPs and directors often return to each other across a career.
5Original score by Chris Hajian. Worth a dedicated listen after — most great films lose half their impact without the score.
6Editor Jimmy Hill shaped the rhythm. On an edit-heavy film, the editor does more to control your pulse than the director.
7French Stewart and Elaine Hendrix and Tony Martin carry the top of the cast.
8Marketing tagline: "Inspect the unexpected.".
9IMDB entry: tt0301454 — still the authoritative cross-reference for credits and trivia.
10Classified under 10 themes, including "cyborg", "superhero", "gadget", "nerd".

The technical file

Cinematography: Geoffrey Wharton
Original score: Chris Hajian
Editing: Jimmy Hill
Runtime: 89 min · 1h 29m
Aspect ratio (typical): 1.37:1 (Academy)
Status: Released
Budget: $12,000,000
Original language: EN
Certification (US): G
IMDB: Inspector Gadget 2 (2003)

Part of

Inspector Gadget Collection

Inspector Gadget is a detective whose body has been implanted with bionic organs that give him diverse abilities such as elongating limbs, an inflatable coat, and a helicopter hat. His main enemy is an evil and mysterious Doctor, the leader of a criminal organization. Gadget is assisted, without his knowledge, by his niece Keren and his dog "Brain". Inspector Gadget is based on the animated series called "Detective Sense".

Also by

Alex Zamm

Stills · wallpapers

Selected frames

Full-resolution frames — open one to save it as a wallpaper.

Wallpaper

Trailers & featurettes

Watch the pieces

Community reviews

What people are saying

r96sk2020-10-11
★ 3/10
Yep, this is terrible. Agreed. Unlike most, I can say I enjoyed 1999's 'Inspector Gadget'. I didn't like this though. I wasn't necessarily expecting it to be better per se, but I did hear that it's supposedly more faithful to the original television show so I thought there was a possibility it would be, at least, just as good - it isn't. Everything about 'Inspector Gadget 2' is severely inferior. The cast aren't as noteworthy, there aren't any - even mildly - amusing scenes and the whole vibe of the film is cheap. It even runs for longer, mostly due to it forcing through a hearty narrative with the characters - wholesomeness simply doesn't fit in a production that needs to be 100% silly. None of the original cast return, with the exception of D. L. Hughley (Gadgetmobile) - though he is barely in this sequel. Elaine Hendrix ('The Parent Trap') is a decent name/face, her character G2 is possibly the most interesting thing onscreen. 1.5 average rating on Letterboxd, entirely deserved - unlike it's predecessor's score.
Filipe Manuel Neto2022-11-12
★ 2/10
A disheartening and very weak film. What can happen when a studio like Disney decides to make a sequel to a movie that sold very well, even though it was decimated by critics and has obvious flaws? The result can be better, with the production learning from its mistakes… but in most cases, the end result manages to be even more absurd and dishonorable than the initial film. And that is precisely what happened here! Inspector Gadget was an amazing cartoon, but it had a brief stint on Portuguese television. I remember him, and I really enjoyed seeing him, but I don't remember seeing him much longer than four or five years. Despite this, it was one of the cartoons that I was most interested in as a child. The 1999 live-action film didn't do it justice... which is not to say it was necessarily bad. It had obvious weaknesses, which were even more glaring when it came to script writing and comic material. This movie, released several years later, is proof that none of this, or almost, was taken seriously, and that Disney only wanted to make money at the expense of fans of the original cartoon. I've read some specialized critics point out several details of this film to justify their opinion that this film manages to be more faithful to the source material. However, I reserve the right to disagree. Claiming this because the main villain has a cat again and not showing his face is, at the very least, ignoring everything else. The original cartoon was fun, had a sense of entertainment and was designed for children and young people… this movie ignores all of that. A rush-hour shopping trip two days before Christmas Eve can be more fun and exciting than this movie, and anyone who has ever been to a mall on that day knows how unnerving and frustrating that can be. The movie is not funny, has horrible dialogues and has a terrible script. Basically, it makes Gadget an obsolete and buggy museum piece for most of the movie, and it makes him fall in love with a robot that doesn't even have a nail of humanity. The robot, of course, would be the “new generation” of police officers who would replace him, and who end up leading the manhunt after Claw escapes from prison. The cast hardly deserves a mention here. The competent and committed Broderick gives way to an inept and tiresome French Stewart. The performance of this actor is simply amateur, and does not do the character any justice. Elaine Hendrix has very little to do. Caitlin Wachs can also complain about the same problem, although she is quite effective and competent in what little she actually does. Tony Martin brought Claw to life, and while many welcome the changes to the character, I feel like she's become more cartoonish here. Disney invested little in the film: proof of this is the weakness of the visual effects and CGI used, which are clearly cheap and unconvincing. The film's fast pacing subtly seeks to stop audiences from thinking seriously about what they're watching, but I felt that didn't work very well for me because I felt the film was running. The sets and filming locations do their part, but the soundtrack is disappointing.