All parent member reviews for Inspector Gadget

Quality

Our star rating assesses the media's overall quality.

Find out more

Learning ratings

  • Best: Really engaging; great learning approach.
  • Very Good: Engaging; good learning approach.
  • Good: Pretty engaging; good learning approach.
  • Fair: Somewhat engaging; OK learning approach.
  • Not for Learning: Not recommended for learning.
  • Not for Kids: Not age-appropriate for kids; not recommended for learning.

Find out more

Parents say

(out of 2 reviews)
AGE
5
QUALITY
 
Review this title!
Adult Written by413804 February 4, 2012
AGE
5
QUALITY
 

Isn't all that great

This is a low point for Disney. Don't bother watching it if you are over the age of 15. It will just irritate you.
What other families should know
Great role models
Too much violence
Parent of a 12 year old Written byTsion April 9, 2008
AGE
0
QUALITY
 

A Wacky and Forgetful Jumble Made for Kids.

INSPECTOR GADGET is based on an old TV show that was a hit. I can't say which one is better, the film or the show, because I've never seen the show. But I've seen the film, and it was nothing like I thought it would be. Security guard John Brown (Matthew Broderick) is injured in an explosion while on duty. Dr. Brenda Bradford (Joely Fisher) and others put him together as a machine full of strange and useless gadgets to save his life. Enter Inspector Gadget, ready to fight the evil Claw (Rupert Everett). The film is pretty bad. It doesn't exactly crash and burn, but it at least crashes. The only thing that keeps it from burning is Rupert Everett's over-the-top acting as the villian. Not to say that his role is perfect art, but it's the best thing about the movie. Violence is constant, with wacky inventions setting fire to things and smacking people. There is no language, but there is some mild innuendo between Brenda and Brown. I can't really say 'highly recommended' on this one. I might recommend it if you're desperate for something to watch and have nothing better to do with your time. But if that's not the case: no.