---
title: "Scooby-Doo"
year: 2002
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/scooby-doo"
fi1m_id: "scooby-doo"
imdb_id: "tt0267913"
tmdb_id: 9637
wikidata_id: "Q936302"
fi1m_score: 48
critics_score: 45
critics_reviews: 11
published: "2026-10-05T02:44:52.937709+00:00"
updated: "2026-10-05T02:45:07.477080+00:00"
region: "CA"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Scooby-Doo (2002)

Directed by Raja Gosnell · 1h 27m · CHVRS PG · Mystery, Adventure, Comedy

## Identity

Scooby-Doo

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/scooby-doo
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** scooby-doo
- **IMDb ID:** tt0267913
- **TMDB ID:** 9637
- **Wikidata ID:** Q936302
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267913/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/9637, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q936302

**Fi1m score: 48** · Critics 45 from 11 reviews

*In a sentence:* Matthew Lillard makes a better cartoon character than the computer does

> Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardellini make *Scooby-Doo* briefly worth the trouble. The computer-generated dog and the muddled comedy make it hard to recommend, even at 87 minutes.

## Synopsis

Mystery Inc. brings together Fred (Freddie Prinze Jr.), Daphne (Sarah Michelle Gellar), Velma (Linda Cardellini) and Shaggy (Matthew Lillard). Scooby is voiced by Neil Fanning. Mondavarious (Rowan Atkinson) and Mary Jane (Isla Fisher) are among the people the gang encounters. The group has a case to solve, with ghosts among the obstacles in an adventure that mixes live-action performers and computer-generated creatures. Shaggy and Scooby share the comic business as the investigation gives the human members of the gang a job to do together.

## Review

Raja Gosnell’s *Scooby-Doo* is a patchy comedy with good casting and too few good jokes. Bringing these characters into live action leaves an awkward choice about how seriously to take them, and James Gunn’s screenplay keeps changing its mind. The broad physical comedy is pitched at children; the knowing references ask adults to enjoy being above it. Both approaches can work, but here they interrupt each other, and neither gets much time to develop.

Matthew Lillard makes Shaggy worth watching even when the surrounding business is not. There is pleasure in seeing an actor commit this fully to a cartoon character without making the performance feel like an apology. Linda Cardellini does similarly useful work as Velma, giving us another reason to stay interested in the human ensemble. Freddie Prinze Jr. as Fred and Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne help make the casting more appealing than the script. We would happily follow these actors into a better organised mystery.

The computer-generated Scooby is the harder sell. His artificiality would matter less if the comedy around him were sharper, but he is asked to carry too much of it. We were irritated by the dog’s farting-and-belching contest. There is little to the exchange beyond the bodily noises themselves, and giving the dog more personality would have been a better use of the effort. The affection that the performance of Shaggy encourages does not reliably extend to his companion.

David Eggby’s cinematography and Bill Boes’s production design give the film a colourful setting suited to its cartoon origins. That is a sensible starting point for a comedy with no obligation to look like everyday life. The bright surroundings are welcome, though they cannot do much for scenes whose jokes have already run out. Scooby’s uncertain fit alongside the actors remains distracting, even within this deliberately artificial setting.

Kent Beyda’s editing maintains a brisk pace, but the action can become difficult to follow. Moving quickly helps disguise a thin joke for a moment; it does less for an investigation whose plotting is already muddled. David Newman’s music contributes to the busy atmosphere without giving the comedy much breathing space. At 87 minutes, the film is short enough, yet it still feels hurried in places where a little clarity would help. We should not have to work this hard to follow something so slight.

A comic mystery needs enough order for the audience to enjoy the interruptions. Here the cartoon antics gradually make the investigation seem incidental, which weakens the reason for keeping this particular group together. The self-conscious humour is another distraction: too often, the film seems concerned that adults might catch it taking the characters seriously. The more committed performances suggest that taking them seriously would have been perfectly safe.

There are modest pleasures here, particularly whenever Shaggy and Velma hold our attention without assistance from an effects sequence. They make the disappointing passages harder to excuse, because the film has already shown that its human cast can do the job. Younger viewers may be more forgiving of the noisy comedy, but that is not much of a recommendation for the adults beside them. For a shared evening, we would choose something with more reliable jokes.

*Fi1m score 48, published 5 October 2026.*

## Straight answers

**Is Scooby-Doo worth watching?**

*Scooby-Doo* is hard to recommend despite its appealing human cast; we score it 48 out of 100. Matthew Lillard’s Shaggy and Linda Cardellini’s Velma provide modest pleasures, and younger viewers may enjoy the noisy physical comedy, but the muddled mystery and unreliable jokes make it a poor choice for a shared evening.

**How long is Scooby-Doo, and what is it rated?**

*Scooby-Doo* runs 1h 27m and is rated PG by the CHVRS in Canada. It is a mystery and adventure film.

**Where can I watch Scooby-Doo in Canada?**

*Scooby-Doo* is streaming on Crave, Netflix and Apple TV in Canada, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV from CA$5.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How does Scooby-Doo compare to The Addams Family?**

*Scooby-Doo* is the weaker comedy beside [*The Addams Family*](https://film.one/film/the-addams-family), which we recommend for its firmer jokes and more comfortable oddness. Both have appealing casts and thin plotting, but the Addams family’s warmth makes that weakness easier to forgive; Scooby’s distracting computer animation and the awkward shifts between children’s slapstick and knowing adult humour leave less to enjoy.

**What should I watch after Scooby-Doo?**

After *Scooby-Doo*, try [*The Addams Family*](https://film.one/film/the-addams-family) (1991, Fi1m 77): Another cartoon household made flesh, with firmer jokes and more comfortable oddness. Then [*Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit*](https://film.one/film/wallace-and-gromit-the-curse-of-the-were-rabbit) (2005, Fi1m 87): Creature trouble, comic detection and a dog who earns his screen time; and [*Beetlejuice*](https://film.one/film/beetlejuice) (1988, Fi1m 83): A live-action cartoon whose human cast belongs beside its unruly supernatural creatures.

### Reviews we read (11)

- **Variety**, Joe Leydon (65/100, inferred): Leydon finds the film fast, frenetic and amusing, though its plotting and some action sequences are muddled. He especially praises the seamless integration of Scooby-Doo’s CGI animation with the live-action cast. [Read](https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/scooby-doo-1200549177/)
- **Screen Daily**, Mike Goodridge (64/100, inferred): The page identifies this as Mike Goodridge’s review, but the review text is behind an access wall. Its verdict and any specific praise or criticism cannot be determined from the available page. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/scooby-doo/409700.article)
- **Time Out**, TJ (64/100, inferred): The available text is too limited to establish the critic’s overall verdict. It notes that the breezy CGI ghosts and fart jokes are aimed at younger viewers. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/scooby-doo)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (2/4): Ebert’s verdict is mixed, finding the film only modestly entertaining. He singles out its broad, cartoon-like comedy as its main appeal. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/scooby-doo-2002)
- **Radio Times**, Sloan Freer (2/5): Freer finds the film colourful but woefully misjudged. She faults its self-conscious cleverness for undermining the story, while its adult-targeted references and childish gags fail to come together. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-dgqt0i/scoobydoo/)
- **Total Film**, Total Film (2/5): The critic calls the adaptation misjudged and disappointing, with appeal mainly for very young viewers. They praise the casting and Matthew Lillard’s Shaggy, while faulting Scooby’s poorly rendered CGI. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/scooby-doo-review-2/)
- **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (1.5/4): Gonzalez gives the film a sharply negative review, arguing that it fails to capture what made the television series compelling. He singles out the self-conscious performances and Gosnell’s direction as major weaknesses. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/scooby-doo/)
- **The Guardian**, Rob Mackie (1 star): The critic finds the film witless, formless and dispiriting. He singles out its pointless humor and complains that the cast’s performances cannot redeem it. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/dec/13/artsfeatures.dvdreviews)
- **Empire**, Chris Hewitt (30/100, inferred): Hewitt finds the film mostly disappointing and aimed too narrowly at young children, though its short runtime makes it relatively painless. He praises Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardellini for capturing their cartoon counterparts, while criticizing Scooby’s unconvincing CGI. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/scooby-doo-review/)
- **Evening Standard** (10/100, inferred): The critic strongly dislikes the film and says it is a letdown. The review singles out the dog’s farting-and-belching contest as especially unpleasant. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/scoobydoo-is-a-real-don-t-7432763.html)
- **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (65/100, inferred): The critic finds the film’s frenetic, cartoon-like fun appealing, though its plot eventually becomes an afterthought. He particularly praises Matthew Lillard’s performance and the way it supports Scooby’s computer-generated character. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/scooby-doo-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray)

## Details

- **Director:** Raja Gosnell
- **Director:** Raja Gosnell
- **Screenplay:** James Gunn
- **Story:** James Gunn, Craig Titley
- **Cinematography:** David Eggby
- **Editor:** Kent Beyda
- **Music:** David Newman
- **Production design:** Bill Boes
- **Costume design:** Leesa Evans
- **Producer:** Richard Suckle, Charles Roven
- **Cast:** Freddie Prinze Jr. as Fred; Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne; Matthew Lillard as Shaggy; Linda Cardellini as Velma; Neil Fanning as Scooby Voice (voice); Rowan Atkinson as Mondavarious; Isla Fisher as Mary Jane; Miguel A. Núñez Jr. as Voodoo Maestro
- **Runtime:** 1h 27m
- **Certificate (CHVRS):** PG
- **Release (Canada):** 14 June 2002
- **Genres:** Mystery, Adventure, Comedy
- **Budget:** $84 million
- **Box office:** $276 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh6v23z6iek

## Where to watch in Canada

- Crave: streaming
- Netflix: streaming
- Crave: add-on
- Apple TV: add-on, hd
- Apple TV: rent CA$5.99, hd
- Apple TV: buy CA$12.99, hd

*Checked 2026-10-05.*

Also available in: AR, AU, BE, BR, CA, CL, CO, DE, EC, EE, ES, FR, GB, IT, LT, MX, MY, NL, PA, PE, PT, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *The Addams Family* (1991), Fi1m 77: Another cartoon household made flesh, with firmer jokes and more comfortable oddness. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-addams-family.md)
- *Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit* (2005), Fi1m 87: Creature trouble, comic detection and a dog who earns his screen time. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/wallace-and-gromit-the-curse-of-the-were-rabbit.md)
- *A Town Called Panic* (2009): For more frantic absurdity, with small plastic figures causing satisfyingly large problems.
- *The Ghost Breakers* (1940): Spooky surroundings and a frightened comic lead, with more patience for the jokes.
- *Beetlejuice* (1988), Fi1m 83: A live-action cartoon whose human cast belongs beside its unruly supernatural creatures. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/beetlejuice.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/scooby-doo