No. And here is the main reason: The film defies the premise of the original series and was done by a European, who even said he never actually saw the cartoon upon which the film was supposed to be based!
I mean, calling it Underdog and then clearly going against the core premise of the franchise is a spat on the character's legacy--not to mention that of the original voice actor, Wally Cox--as well as a hurtful blow as it pertains to the little hound's fanbase.
Also regarding the film, the rap sucks, because rap--in itself--primarily sucks, IMO. The ways in which the movie ruined the show's premise:
1. Giving Underdog a master when he needs no master
2. Making all other animals--Polly included (although Underdog might not mind)--nude
3. Making Riff-Raff into a pathethic rottweiler when he was designed to be a tough-as-nails wolfish ganster thug
4. Nixing Underdog's patentedly loveable rhyming for a teeny-bopper/potty humor type of verbage (or limiting said rhyming to a small section of the film when the real true Underdog spoke in rhyme every time)
5. Making the characters animals when they were supposed to be anthromorphic animal characterizations that could walk on what would be their hind legs
6. Ridding Underdog of his ability to actually speak with humans (that aren't his master)
Need I go on? Plus, Underdog's co-creator, Joe Harris hated the new idea as well, and yet, a certain Mouse House went along with the plans anyway!
But then again, what should I expect from a company who turns its staple icon from
a cherished character for all ages to
Dora-esque stuff for babies?
In short, to compare:
This IS Underdog:
http://14-bis.deviantart.com/art/Sweet-Polly-and-Underdog-63626316
This IS NOT Underdog:
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/7587...D25304569000454DE2ABFEDECF9E8284831B75F48EF45
*cues
the REAL Underdog theme*