Undercover Kids (2004) User Reviews

This movie is not worth renting, If you bought the DVD your SICK!

[duck_tim · 3/10 · 18 September 2005]

The story was pretty interesting, but it just didn't work out. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! REALLY bad acting, Corny script, plus really REALLY UGLY child actors. It was a very lame movie and I give it a rating of 3/10 just because the storyline was good and the idea of Telepathic twins was pretty interesting. This movie could have been made so much better with normal looking child actors and a better script and probably a different director. I do not recommend to anyone that they should see this movie believe me your not missing out on anything and you'll be sorry if you do. Maybe people a bit younger, who don't care about the faults and audio problems with people talking without their lips moving and couldn't care less about geeky child actors could enjoy this movie. MAYBE.

Suitable for children.

[Petie3-2 · 4/10 · 9 February 2006]

This was a fair attempt at a coherent kids' detective story. Could have used a few more takes. That the kids were geeky is not supported by the evidence. The rap sequence, even the chess sequence prove that the kids were multi-faceted and klutziness was their cover. (I sure hope London Smith isn't that hopeless with a basketball, he might grow up to be normal.) I figure the Smith kids are brother and sister; are they twins? I know brother and sister twins are fraternal, but they sure look alike. Austin posted far too much, please remove it if you can. One advantage of snail mail is that your audience is targeted. Right now every perv in SoCal knows where you live and probably where you go to school, right?

Spy Kids On The Cheap. The Very Very Very Cheap. Peanuts In Fact

[neiljones1981 · 2/10 · 6 August 2020]

Actually this makes Spy Kids look like a masterpiece but it was the closest comparison I could think of. Your mileage may vary.

Basic premise boils down to a spot of vandalism and somebody else gets the blame, even though it wasn't them and some smart-arse decrees that this is worthy of his "undercover" agency's time to go and investigate, with the help of telepathic twins and some "gadgets".

While I'm prepared to accept some drop in standards over a full movie due to this being a TV movie/straight to video/DVD (this is par for the course unfortunately since these are tainted with a cheap-and-cheerful reputation at the best of times), this has clearly been cobbled together either very quickly or very cheaply. Or both, and so this results in writing that wouldn't look out of place if it had been done by a Year 10 student for English coursework. The script is full of clumsy dialogue and one gets the impression nobody on camera wants to be here.

Might be one of those "kids under 10 may like it" jobs, but everybody should pick another movie.

Horrible movie.

[nickster117 · 1/10 · 1 November 2007]

i thought this a new version of this but i was wrong. this movie sucked. it was a movie from hell. do not listen to the guy who said that "this is a very interesting movie." if it had better actors and more to the plot line with ups and downs it would be a better movie. but overall its the most worst filmed, straight forward, movie ever. even the worst rated movie on IMDb is way better. i say two billion thumbs down. i ran a test of the video to see how bad it was and everyone voted "the worst movie ever made in the history of the world. its true. the filming angles are horrible and i bet i could give anyone a camera and 2 days to make a film better than this. I'm sorry troger141 but you are wrong. i agree with duck Tim and Petie3-2. it could of been done good if they had more expensive tech and time. it looks like the whole thing was crammed together in about 3 days. at the end no surprises ending. its them getting the knowledge from the beginning of the movie together and cramming it. i bet a baby could solve it faster than the "genius" in the movie. do not get this. the only way i would see this movie is that someone gives me $999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 dollars.

IT TOOK ME HOURS TO FIND

[nikkebaby · 2/10 · 19 April 2021]

So basically me and my brother remembered this movie from when we were little kids I had go through every thing I could to find this movie and that takes away another point from this movie other wise it would be a 3.

The acting was painful

[mcheers · 2/10 · 30 December 2015]

I'm not going to comment on how 'ugly' the kids were, that has nothing to do with the quality of the production. The plot was painful - where the genius knew a major recording star, and they were best friends ... that was just a bizarre plot twist. The writing was really bad ... some of the dialogue was something that you'd write back in high school. But the worst part of all was the acting. The same group that wrote the script back in high school acted as though they were back in high school. I can't think of a single person who looked as though they were a professional actor. Having said that, my nine year old kids enjoyed it.

It's a very interesting movie

[troger141 · 8/10 · 12 February 2005]

Undercover kids is really cool, I liked it a lot. I have a couple of good friends that really enjoyed it. So I am glad they did. The movie is about 2 kids named Nicole and Nelson. They have like telepathic abilities and stuff.Their parents die and their older sister Susan "Suzie" comes down to take care of them. The twins go to a new school where vandalism is taking place. So they have an idea to go undercover and find out who's trashing the school. But they need some help so they call their friend George a super genius ( he's only 10 or 11 I think, but still young) to solve the case. So go rent Undercover kids at your local video store. ENJOY!