15 September 2003 | ukcommando
Why did they bother?
I'm afraid I have to agree with much of Ericho's comments. This film just appeared shoddily made, and just looks like a budget price sequel compared to the first film which had Matt Broderick and Rupert Everett who frankly are in a different league to the acting in this film.
In the first live action film, Gadget was genuine and well intentioned, but a complete bumbler. In this film though, he just comes across as an arrogant, self-righteous, irritating pillock. His actions in the opening scenes of the film, persecuting an old granny for exceeding the speed limit by 0.3mph just destroy any sympathy for the character.
As for Claw, well they have attempted to bring the character more into line with the cartoon portrayal. Fair enough, but there's no explanation at all of how he has changed from the suave businessman Sanford Scolex of the first film into the shady character with the croaky voice in this. Also there's no menace at all in the acting of the character, which just appears to be some guy in a trenchcoat waving his claw around randomly, with a voiceover added later!
Also, what happened to Brenda Bradford who developed the Gadget technology with her Father? In the first flick, she was the love of Gadget's life and the film ended with them together, yet there's not even a mention of her in this film. Are filmakers so arrogant nowadays that they can't be bothered to provide even a flimsy explanation?
They really shouldn't have bothered making this, but it appears as though the studios are more than willing to dish out any rubbish to a child audience!
Mind you Elaine Hendrix does provide some eye candy as G2, but that's another matter........