Flubber (1997) Poster

(1997)

User Reviews

Review this title
72 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Technically impressive and enjoyable, but somewhat forgettable too
TheLittleSongbird31 December 2009
This movie had a lot of potential. While technically impressive and very enjoyable with some genuinely funny moments, for some reason it falls short. Of course there are redeeming qualities, such as the fun music score by Danny Elfman, one of my all time favourite film composers and an amusing turn from Robin Williams. Also the special effects are greatly improved from the effects in the Absent Minded Professor, and Flubber who is so cute steals the show. The performances from Clancy Brown, Ted Levine and Marcia Gay Horden are entertaining, and Jodi Benson (who voiced Ariel in the Little Mermaid)is a delight as the voice of Weebo, whose death is absolutely heart-rending. However the story is very predictable, and offers few surprises, and the physical comedy was better than the patchy script which in places felt uninspired. That saying some of the physical comedy has strong hints of deja vu, and is rather hit and miss. Of course kids will lap it up, but adults probably won't like it as much. The second half of the movie is more meandering in quality compared to the first half, very little of interest happens and some of the situations come across as ridiculous. All in all, somewhat forgettable, but for a kids movie it is pretty entertaining. 6/10 Bethany Cox
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mildly amusing kids film
bob the moo23 January 2002
An absent minded professor discovers a new type of rubber that can be harnessed as an energy source. However his discovery causes him to miss his wedding and lose his girlfriend. While trying to demonstrate his discovery to Sara Jean to win her back, he gets the attention of mobster Hoenicker who wants the discovery for himself.

The story here is unimportant - it's all a bit daft and if you look too closely at it, it all falls apart. For example - the professor has created a flying robot that has full intelligence and character but yet he hasn't made any money for himself or his college!, is the flubber alive or not? etc. But really it's all about the set pieces and the jokes. As such it falls down a little - it's good for kids but there's nothing in the crude slapstick for adults. Jokes include the usual "people getting hit in the head" style humour.

Williams character is not funny at all - a bit of a weakness in a comedy lead. In fact his forgetfulness is just stupid at times and doesn't have any charm to cover it. The funniest bits actually revolve around McDonald's Wilson - he doesn't get good lines but he has lots of incidental laughs. Ted Levine and Clancy Brown have both done better than this and are limited to comedy thugs - although both were probably glad to be in a big movie. Other well known faces include Raymond J. Barry and Wil Wheaton, although these are also underused. It's not really a movie about performances but I think it's still important.

The best characters are Weebo and the flubber. Weebo is quite funny and actually has a deep character - she's the secretary in love with her boss type - she also creates a strangely moving scene. The flubber is good - best in one big musical number halfway through and I wonder if they could have had more imaginative scenes with it as a character rather than just a bouncy ball.

Overall it's a kids film - don't expect anything more than that.
25 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not Williams' best role
Pilsung8916 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Flubber came out during the mid/late nineties. This is the time where I believe Disney began losing its magic in the movie industry. Disney movies before always had the magical feeling and good stories. Flubber does not not have either. The main good thing it has is the acting. The acting is fairly good. This is not Robin Williams' best work, but he does a good enough job.

The story revolves around a naive and eccentric inventor and college professor portrayed by Robin Williams. he creates a "living" specimen of goo that can shape-shift at will and is incredibly bouncy, but his dedication to it's creation causes him to forget his wedding. He ends up using the 'Flubber' to get his fiancé back and save his college from threats of closing down. I have no idea how the movie tries to make it work. I didn't really understand as a kid and I don't get it as an adult.

The plot is weird, the directing isn't very good, and many of the characters are wooden. Overall, this Disney flick can be skipped. You won't be missing much
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining and visually impressive, the film nevertheless falls short of the joyous satisfaction found in the original AMP
inkblot1123 August 2007
Philip (Robin Williams) is a chemistry professor at a college with financial woes. On a side note, the school's president, talented Sara Jean (Marcia Gay Harden) is Philip's girlfriend and she is deeply disappointed that he has left her standing at the altar THREE times. Yet, Philip truly loves Sara. His problem is, of course, that once he is into an experiment, he loses touch with everything else in his life. The day Philip misses his third trip up the aisle of love, he discovers something big...that is, flying rubber or flubber. Knowing this could be the invention that turns the college's ledger into the black, he is eager to tell Sara of the news. Unfortunately, she won't talk to him and is receiving the attentions of a rival chemistry prof at a nearby university. It is this rival's intention, along with a host of others connected to the school, to steal the rubbery substance for their own purposes. Will they succeed? This is a mildly entertaining film, mostly due to Williams star power and the spectacular visual effects the movie offers. Flubber, indeed, takes on a green personality not unlike the Pillsbury doughboy and bounces all over the place, causing much fun and havoc. There is also a tiny robot-computer, living with Philip, that is very appealing. Add on the eye-treat of flying cars and basketball superduper jumpshots and you have a technically impressive film. Yet, somewhere along the way, a bit of the original film's soul and joyous freshness is lost. No, its not the fault of the talented Williams, Harden, Christopher McDonald or the other cast members. They are quite fine. There are also some laugh out loud scenes, such as the one where Professor Philip starts giving a lecture, not noticing that he is in a figure drawing class, or the ones where a neighboring boy, quite rightly fears, to his father's consternation, what is outside his window when flubber is out and about. In summary, the film's problem is probably a case of trying too hard in the special effects category and not enough in the remaining aspects of film making. Even so, it is not a stretch to say that most families will like Flubber, as everyone will be amazed by the stunning look of the movie.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun Mainly For The Kids
ccthemovieman-112 March 2007
This was a fun remake of "The Absent-Minded Professor," with special-effects the main show here. We see and hear the following impossible things: inanimate objects become human (with feelings, no less!) and a flying computer called "Weebo." Obviously, this is just a far-off story designs only for laughs (I know one person who actually took some of this stuff seriously.)

Despite a bowling bowl repeatedly hitting someone in the head, it's a fairly harmless movie with no language problems, which is a rarity in a Robin Williams film. Robin is the "absent- minded professor," in this "Dr. Philip Brainiard." You can call him, "Dr. Phil." There are one or two sneaky-vulgar lines but nothing much.

With the flubber-substance making balls bounce forever, into every object, you get a lot of slapstick scenes that are either stupid or laugh-out-loud funny. The story, geared a lot more for kids than adults, has a nice lighthearted feel to it. For adults, one viewing is plenty, but kids will enjoy it multiple times.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great talent,dry story.
SmileysWorld10 October 2001
I admire Robin Williams.His quick,improvisational humor make him the most unique entertainer of our time.However,he does from time to time make bad choices,and Flubber was indeed a bad one,at least scriptwise.This movie's problem is not from bad performances,but from terrible writing,and that often makes the performers look bad.The intentions here are good,but the movie just fell flat in all aspects.If you want to see a movie about flubber,I would highly suggest "The Absent Minded Professor".It's a classic and it's much better.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
When your most interesting character is a computer, you've got problems.
JamesHitchcock14 November 2005
"Flubber" is based upon that old comedy cliché, the absent-minded scientific genius. The central character, Professor Philip Brainard, is a brilliant inventor who has not only invented a robot that will do the housework for him but has also cracked the artificial intelligence problem by producing Weebo, a computer with its own personality that can not only talk to him but also fly. At present he is working on "flubber", a rubbery substance that will allow cars and other objects to fly through the air. For all his intellectual brilliance, however, his private life is so disorganised that he has forgotten to turn up to his own wedding to his attractive sweetheart Sara, not once but three times.

The plot turns upon Brainard's attempts to produce his flubber, which he sees as a solution to the financial problems confronting the college at which he teaches and of which Sara is the principal. (Like another reviewer, I found myself wondering why he didn't just try marketing his domestic robot or his talking computer, inventions which I thought would have had just as much commercial potential). Along the way, he has to fight off Wilson, the handsome but too smooth principal of another college who is his rival for Sara's affections, and a corrupt businessman who wants to use the flubber for his own selfish ends.

The film was clearly designed as a comedy for children, and works quite well as such, aided by a good deal of slapstick humour, mostly involving Robin Williams as Brainard. Unlike some children's films, however, such as the "Harry Potter" series, this one does not have much in it to keep adults entertained. Williams is clearly a talented comedian, but strangely enough, with a few exceptions such as "Mrs Doubtfire", he has been most successful in films with a serious purpose like "Dead Poets Society" or "Good Morning Vietnam", although even in these he often manages to find a use for his comic talents. In many of his comedies his talents just seem wasted. "Club Paradise" is an example, and "Flubber" is another. All the other characters, with one exception, just seem like stock figures with little individuality about them.

The one exception is Weebo the computer. The British computer pioneer Alan Turing devised what has since become known as the "Turing Test" for deciding whether a machine can be said to be intelligent. A human judge engages in a conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot tell which is which, the machine is said to pass the test. Unfortunately, if the human involved were one of those in this film, Weebo would fail the test. She (Weebo has a female voice and personality) is smart, funny, sensitive and lovable, much more so than anyone else in the film, so it would be easy to tell them apart. And when your most interesting character is an electronic rather than a flesh-and-blood one, your film has got problems. 5/10
15 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Flubber, the get together, family film.
Sapphire38321 October 2013
When I saw the reviews for this film, I was expecting something very poorly made and bad quality. True, for an adult without a kid it isn't ideal, but why buy a film if it has a cover like this when you're not a child any more? Everywhere online it says this is a great kids flick, for families and more. If you're like me and read reviews before buying or renting a film, then you'd know not to get it.

Getting to what the movie is like, these aren't the best graphics, but what do you expect in an 1997 film? The Flubber, Weebo etc. are already neatly done, which I find quite impressive for a film made at that time.

The humor in this may not be the jokes, but not all kids understand certain types of joke, so in the film they just went for the classic 'Bad Guys Whacked In The Face' type. There is no gore or extreme violence in this, everything has a light-hearted touch to it and the flubber truly seems fun to play with.

Robin does do a good job as the professor, making many wacky inventions and always forgetting. Weebo played by Jodi, continues to be the kind, thoughtful person - or in this case computer - that she is when she plays Ariel in the little mermaid.

Overrall it's a pretty good film, not ideal for adults but then why get a kids film?
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It was great except for one thing...
Sweetestsixteen9 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If you're looking for a great family film then this is it! The characters are great. The professor was very funny and sweet so whenever he feels sad you feel his pain. Webo the flying robot is also funny and the close relationship between her and the professor really brings a family feel to the movie. But when they experienced a great loss later on in the film, their relationship began to make me feel a little comfortable. When I was younger I remember feeling so sad but eight years later as teenager that part of the film was simply weird. I found the professor's wife was rude and annoying until the end and her partner (when her and the professor break up) is just as funny as the professor. Seeing the way they try and disguise their hate for one another was a good laugh.

Overall the movie is truly unique. Flubber is a great character who young children will fall in love with immediately. You'll really enjoy Flubber's great dance number! Forget the bad reviews and give this film a chance. It's been eight years since I saw the film for the first time and I still smile whenever I think about it.

Judge for yourself. Watch it.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Flying Rubber
Prismark1025 January 2015
Disney got Robin William's who became popular in the 1990s with family entertainment films to remake the The Absent Minded Professor. Popular with kids at the time mainly because it was co- written by John Hughes who put some of his Home alone slapstick formula with two comedy henchman played by Ted Levine and Clancy Brown.

William's discovers discovers some kind of flying rubber which may save his college which is in a financial crisis. So excited he is with his invention that he forgets his wedding day for the third time. Why his bride to be could not make sure that in case he forgets, he is accompanied by two people to drag him to the church on time is anyone's guess.

His girlfriend who also happens to be the College Dean gets the attention of a love rival and a mobster wants the formula for flubber and sends his henchman to retrieve it.

Williams is assisted by an Artificial Intelligent flying robot called Weebo which strangely is not marketed by Williams to save the college.

The film is knockabout slapstick squarely aimed at kids and they will appreciate it the most. Adults will find the film too silly, flawed and simplistic.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not As Good as "The Absent Minded Professor" But Pretty Funny
zardoz-136 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Tastes and times have changed drastically since 1961 when Fred MacMurray originally introduced the super-elastic stuff called 'flubber' to film audiences in Walt Disney's "The Absent Minded Professor." In the high-tech, 1990's Disney remake "Flubber" reinvents itself as an animated, gooey-green, silly putty blob of flying rubber that talks and dances. Actually, flubber resembles a combination of the Pillsbury Doughboy crossed with the shape-shifting water creature in James Cameron's 1989 fantasy thriller "The Abyss." Inventive, excessive, but tolerably entertaining, director Les Mayfield's remake of "The Absent Minded Professor" will captivate both young and absent-minded audiences. Happily, "Flubber" succeeds as a resilient special effects laden tour-de-farce. Sadly, the remake lacks the wit, warmth, subtlety, and comedic irony that distinguished its black & white predecessor. The spectacular morphing effects of George Lucas' Industrial Light & Magic Company and the visual wizardry of Peter Crosman, Tom Bertino, and Douglas Hans Smith cannot offset the film's hopelessly befuddled plot.

The story by John Hughes and the late Bill Walsh follows the zany efforts of a scatterbrained university chemistry professor. Dr. Philip Brainard (Robin Williams of "Popeye") accidentally cooks up a gravity defying concoction called 'flubber.' Generating its own perpetual motion, 'flubber' has uses limited only by the imagination. Unlike the limp lump of 'flubber' in "The Absent-Minded Professor," the 'flubber' "Flubber" radiates a mischievous personality, but the filmmakers never solidify its amorphous character. Not only will Brainard 'flubber' rescue Medfield College from bankruptcy and closure, but 'flubber' will also redeem him in the eyes of the long-suffering sweetheart that he wants to wed: Medfield College President Sara Jean Reynolds (Marcia Gay Harden.) Brainard heads up Sara Jean's you-know-what list. Three times in a row he has left her stranded at the altar! If things aren't bad enough, Brainard's old academic nemesis Wilson Croft (Christopher MacDonald of "Thelma & Louise") lurks in the background. Oil and conniving, Croft plans to pilfer Brainard's fiancée as well as take credit for his 'flubber' formula and the millions of dollars that it is sure to reap. The professor's next bigger enemy is perhaps his worst: corrupt businessman Chester Hoenicker (Raymond J. Barry of "Mad City"). Hoenicker's bratty son Bennett (Will Wheaton of TV's "Star Trek: The Next Generation") flunked Brainard's class. Consequently, Bennett got suspended from the basketball team. Initially, all that Hoenicker sought was a simple change of grade so Bennett, the top hoopster on the Medfield basketball team, could resume playing. When Hoenicker senior learns more about 'flubber,' he joins forces with the equally avaricious Croft to rip-off Braniard's discovery.

Women have come a long way since the 1961 original. Disney has promoted the fiancée from being the college president's secretary to the college president! Although Sara Jean presides over Medfield, she cannot keep it out of the red without the help of a good man. "Flubber" implies that women indeed have come a long way, but not far enough to get by on their own wits. Moreover, Sara Jean's romance with Brainard appears to occupy her every waking minute instead of the financial crisis that threatens her small, private college. Her priorities appear demeaningly misplaced. WEEBO, Brainard's flying female computer, serves as a sort of bad girl here who gets her just comeuppance for tampering with Brainard's social life. At one point, WEEBO creates a cyber-Siren image for herself to detract Brainard from Sara Jean.

"Flubber" sounds like a can't-miss-hit from this description. If anything, "Flubber" proves that absent-minded audiences appreciate movies with an absence of drama. The original movie contained a richer plot with a variety of nuances that heightened its hilarity. "Flubber" smears on obvious slapstick to churn up laughs. John Hughes' script relies on his tried and true "Home Alone" routines. Hughes deserves the blame for this half-baked farce. For example, Hoenicker's henchman, Smith (Clancy Brown of "Starship Troopers") and Wesson (Ted Levine of "Silence of the Lambs") are clearly stand-ins for the Joe Pesci & Daniel Stern duo from the "Home Alone" comedies. Brainard's flubber clobbers them literally in the form of a golf ball and a bowling ball. Smith gets nailed by a non-stop golf ball, while a hard flying bowling ball wallops Wesson. When either object strikes them, these goons hit the deck like pole-axed ten pins.

Director Les Mayfield of "Encino Man" and "Miracle on 34th Street") and scenarist John Hughes cannot make up their own minds about flubber. Flubber has endless possibilities, and its embryonic personality can be playful but occasionally snappish, too. WEEBO accuses Brainard of giving flubber "too much free will." Flubber never seems to live up to its potential unless it is exploding, flying through rooms, and cronking noggins. Most of the humor comes from how flubber reacts to different situations more than how Brainard applies it. Because they never define the nature of flubber, its wide open character lacks dramatic clarity. For example, the filmmakers don't set any limits to what flubber can do. Perhaps Mayfield and company chose green as flubber's lime-green color because the special effects were so expensive.

Credit goes to director Les Mayfield for the get-up-and-goo pace of dizzy Disney film. He does a find job of seamlessly integrating the over-the-top special effects with live action, too. "Flubber" is aimless but predictable fun. The villains seem less villainous this time around, and Christopher MacDonald's bad guy appears simply to give flubber something through which to fly. The bowel humor here and there adds little to the humor and seems out of place in a juvenile movie. Parents may find themselves in a curious moral dilemma trying to explain to their kids why Brainard's cheating tactics should be condoned. He applies flubber to the basketball team's sneakers to help them beat their tall, merciless opponents on the court. Danny Elfman's lively music emphasizes the fast, bouncy pace of "Flubber" and helps the film scoot right along to its inevitable happy ending.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Still somewhat enjoyable as a kids movie but it had more potential really.
Boba_Fett113829 April 2006
This movie really feels like a wasted opportunity. With so many talent involved, how could this movie turn out to be so disappointing? It probably is due to the messy script that uses too many plot lines that never get fully developed or that work out completely the way as they were suppose to. You can say that the movie feels incomplete. I don't know, were they in a hurry or something to complete this movie? I have a feeling that a month or two more work on the movie- and perhaps its script, would had made this movie a better one.

It's still somewhat decent entertainment for the kids. The characters should be enjoyable for them and some of the comical situations are good enough to make them laugh.

Robin Williams is always fun to watch in a comedy but however in this case it feels like he's holding back to not completely play a nutty professor. It's perhaps a bit of a disappointing to most. When you know Robin Williams plays the lead role in a comedy you would expect some more fireworks and hilarious situations from him. His talent is wasted, a real missed opportunity for the movie to become a great one. Christopher McDonald plays a typical 'villainoush' Christopher McDonald role and he does it once more really great. Other well known actors in the movie are Marcia Gay Harden, Raymond J. Barry (boy, he's beginning to look really old now), Ted Levine and Clancy Brown. But none of the characters feel really developed well enough in the movie, with the exception of the robotic character Weebo. Of course it's not a very good sign when the best developed- and featured character of the movie is not even an human...

Also the use of 'Flubber' is highly below par. From a movie named "Flubber" I expected something more from the green slimy stuff. It however doesn't play a that significant role in the movie and the things that are done with the Flubber are far from original or interesting. The Flubber itself however looks fantastic through some early computer effects. Remember that this movie was released in 1997 when the special effects were of course not as advanced as present day is the case. The effects from this movie look great and really fully convincing. Too bad that it isn't featured very well in the movie.

The story is of course predictable from A to Z and the movie has absolutely no surprises in it. It makes "Flubber" a very easily forgettable movie that is far from great. The movie had far more potential really. If only that had made some better choices with its story and perhaps picked a different director...

The movie is good and professional looking, so from a technical point of view the movie does really not disappoint. Also the fun musical score by Danny Elfman makes the movie a watchable one

The kids will probably still enjoy it but still the movie feels like a big waste of some far more and greater potential, which the movie really had.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Liked it when I was a kid. Not so much now.
blazesnakes929 July 2014
As a boy, I was always impressed and amused by the movies that I saw. Some of them bring back memories of me watching whatever kids movie that made me excited. But as time goes on, those memories are still embedded in my memory bank. And sometimes, an fellow movie-goer can sometimes get teary-eyed by going down memory lane. Some of those movies do hold up well. Some of them, well.... get lost in my mind.

Take Flubber, for example. Flubber is the kind of movie that I enjoyed as a young boy. But, I've grown up over the years and to tell you the truth, it doesn't hold up for me.

The story was originally from the 1961 comedy film, "The Absent-Minded Professor". In that film, Fred MacMurray played the lead character. MacMurray's character was a complete nut case who invents a new and improved substance that can bounces off the floor due the amount of energy stored inside. The substance was named Flubber, due to the fact that it is flying rubber. The absent-minded professor tried to convince his colleagues that flubber can saved their university from going into shambles.

Here, Robin Williams plays the absent-minded professor. Professor Phillip Brainard, (who could be a distant relative or son of the original Absent-Minded Professor), is in the process of creating a new substance that can raise money to save the college from closure. Brainard's colleague is a flying robot called Weebo. Brainard soon discovers flubber and from the start of it, Flubber doesn't want to settle down.

The story deepens as Brainard tries to convince the college president and his fiancée, (Marcia Gay Harden), but it doesn't turn out the way he wants it to go. He even expands the idea of flubber by converting the substance into a liquid and then into a white cream. In one particular scene in the movie, Brainard tries out the flubber by spraying it onto a basketball that can bounces as twice as much as a regular basketball. The idea even becomes more popular when it spreads onto a basketball team. Their sneakers are also sprayed with flubber, making them bounce more higher and faster than ever.

There are, however, bad guys in Flubber, and their job in the movie is to try to steal the substance from Brainard. But, to tell you the truth, you seen these bad guys before in a movie. And it's no surprise that these characters are ripped right out of Home Alone. It's ironic because the script for the movie was written by John Hughes.

I don't know what happened to John Hughes back then. He started off his career with good movies like Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Planes, Trains and Automobiles. But, after the big success of Home Alone, I believe Hughes dropped his pen and started depending on recycled material from his other movies to substitute in his scripts. Recycled material soon resulted in forgettable movies like Dutch, Career Opportunities and Curly Sue. Bad career move. And I supposed Flubber can be included in this specific category of forgettable John Hughes' movies.

Robin Williams looks as if he was practically on speed throughout the entire movie. At certain times throughout this movie, I thought he overacted as being the main character of the story. The slapstick did not work this time around since it didn't make me laugh the first time I saw it as a young boy. The flubber wasn't even worth my time since there wasn't anything special about the green goo. In fact, when Flubber soon shows up, the movie goes downhill from there with the green gelatin bouncing around the movie, breaking windows and panes of glass. I realize that after the movie was over, I forgot how many times Flubber went through a window or a pane of glass. It was very tiresome and boring the second time around.

Is there anything else I forgot? I don't think so. Except to say that I won't be looking forward to seeing this movie since this is one of those kids' movies that I like to forget. But, don't worry. There's plenty of other good or great kids' movies that I saw in my childhood. Flubber wasn't one of them. ★ 1/2 1 1/2 star.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fred MacMurray, where are you??
Mister-69 November 1999
Words escape me. My jaw is on the floor. How can this be?

You want to see how NOT to make a kid's comedy? Watch "Flubber" then count with me the ways:

1) Williams isn't funny (his hair seems to put in more acting time than he does).

2) It's written by John Hughes (and it isn't even good on a slapstick level! Sheesh!!).

3) Marcia Gay Harden is completely, totally, hopelessly wasted (did I say "totally"? Good!).

4) There aren't HALF as many funny situations in this one as there was in the original.

5) The bad guys act as if they're in a serious movie (though since there wasn't any laughs in this one, I can see where they would get confused for content).

6) There are more FX than anything else (when a movie forsakes its story in favor of an FX loop, it's not a good sign).

There are more, but we're only allowed 1,000 words for reviews here.

One star. For the FX. They're good.
15 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bearable only for kids
Mort-313 February 2001
A few good jokes, tolerable special effects, that's all. This film doesn't try to be a great piece of art, it wants nothing else than to entertain people, mainly children. And for children and also other people who don't think about it any longer, it's fun and therefore able to bring the producers a lot of money. For people like me, it rather hurts. A machine falling in love with a professor? Is that cute? A man who misses his wedding three times? Not really. Luckily, we're told in no uncertain terms that John Hughes is responsible for this: the "Home Alone`-head-bangings come up again and again. And everybody's laughing...?
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Painful and Droll
d5witkow_9914 January 2001
On a flight home from Japan the in-flight movies were Flubber, Home Alone 3, and For Richer or Poorer (starring Tim Allen and Kristie Allie). These are by far three of the worst films I have ever been subjected to. How I managed to see them all in one shot, I will never know. Luck I guess.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great kids movie!
knightviper565 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw this as a kid, when I was probably about 5 or 6, and I thought that it was hilarious. I just recently took it out of the case to watch it again with a friend, and found that it was still funny! By now, I have seen both this and the original Absent-Minded Professor, and loved both that and Flubber. Yes that is possible. This movie is about Robin Williams who plays a professor who is also an inventor and invents a lot of robots to help him around the house, but is so focused on his work that he misses his own wedding...three times. He invents a green rubbery substance that can make things fly and do a lot of other things that will be fun to watch if you are, or ever were, a kid. Eventually, the bad guys try to get it for themselves, and the race is on! If you want an absolutely perfect movie, than this is NOT the movie. But if you want to watch an AMAZING comedy, than this is the one for you. And for those of you who are wondering why I gave what I called a not perfect movie a 10 out of 10, it is because I believe that in it's own way, it is perfect. A perfect comedy, and one of my favorites. If you can get your hands on a copy I would definitely recommend it, especially if you have young kids, or know young kids.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
another remake............
Mickey Knox15 January 2001
These 2 words are so oftenly said nowadays that i got sick of them. Another remake. It looks like people in Hollywood are running out of ideas and all they can do is take older ideas and make them spectacular.

With Flubber it's not only an idea copied. It's the whole film. Except a few scenes everything is like in The Absent Minded Professor. Only with better effects.

I gave this movie a 3 out of 10 for 2 reasons: 1. Robin Williams, a great actor, and 2. the effects - pretty good.

Except that Flubber is awfull.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
It's flying rubber... It's, Flubber!!
NateWatchesCoolMovies13 September 2016
A remake of an old black and white Disney flick called The Absent Minded Professor that has long since gotten a bit stale, Flubber took all the best elements of that and breathed new 90's life into the premise, most of the pep in its step coming from star Robin Williams. Keep in mind it was a critical bomb though, which just doesn't make a shred of sense to me. It's fun, lighthearted, hilarious and just a bit raunchy in places where it can pull it off. For whatever reason, it didn't sit well with anyone other than fans like me who will furiously shove a copy in your face if we hear that you haven't seen it. Williams is college professor Philip Brainard, who is so absent minded it borders on dementia. He leaves his lovely fiancé (Marcia Gay Harden) at the alter TWICE, prompting the advances of irksome college dean Shooter Mcgavi- I mean Christopher Mcdonald. He's on a quest, you see, an obsessive quest to find the formula for... something. That something turns up after a destructive whirlwind of disasters in his basement lab, and in the form of Flubber, a lovable ball of green goo, infected with incurable ADHD and an inexhaustible sense of humour. While the utter the life of the party, Flubber does have its practical uses, such as making cars fly and turning the hopeless varsity basketball team into a bunch of flying Tasmanian devils who nail every dunk. This all gets the attention of insidious local philanthropist and lowlife Chester Hoenicker (Raymond J. Barry) who greedily wants the discovery for his own. He sends his two goons Smith (Ted Levine) and Wesson (Clancy Brown) to rob Brainard of his precious sentient mucous, which turns into one of the most hilarious displays of slapstick comedy since the Three Stooges. Oh, did I mention Williams has a little flying UFO sidekick named Weebo, who has a perfect GIF reaction to everything, before GIF's were even a thing? So much to love about this little classic. Williams is his usual buoyant self, with some of his trademark razor focus diminished in favor of doe eyed, vacuous forgetfulness that would make Jason Bourne guilty for ever whining about his predicament. Special effects are top drawer too, Flubber would look dapper in Blu Ray if they ever felt so inclined as to release one, not to mention aforementioned airborne automobiles and dear little Weebo. Can't give enough glowing praise to this little treasure, and hiss enough venom towards those sourpuss critics who assaulted it. Flubber for the win.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gives Remakes a Bad Name
eu-5122 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
You can be disappointed even when you are not expecting much. There was no fault in wishing to share "The AbsentMinded Professor" with a later generation, but it had to be remade. With Robin Williams replacing Fred MacMurray, the professor could be more boisterous and physical. With 1997 replacing 1961, the special effects could be much more sophisticated. So it's win-win, right? No, but a few things did go right. Two things, actually. Robin Williams had one good scene. In the opening, Dr. Brainard is introduced as a man who is so out of touch with his surroundings that he could step into the wrong lecture hall and deliver an elementary physics lecture to an art class. Other than that, the role and the actor were forgettable. Also, the Danny Elfman soundtrack was very lively, particularly the Flubber Rumba.

This time around, the flubber has anthropomorphic properties. That change was simply an excuse to have the computer-animated dance scene, which was fun in a Scrubbing Bubbles kind of way. Other than that (and color), the special effects fell considerably short of the 1961 version. When people fly, they look like they are hanging on wires. When they fall, they look like they are hanging on wires. When they bounce -- well, you get the pattern.

These days, movie makers are free to do quite a few things that were not allowed in 1961. Unfortunately, many of them feel a need to remind us by including a gratuitously vulgar scene in everything they release. This time we get a man blowing flubber out his rectum. It was as if to say, "Take that! We've already got your money!"
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Flubber is for the kids.
OllieSuave-0075 May 2014
This is the remake of 1961's Absent-Minded Professor, where Robin Williams plays Professor Phillip Brainard. He works with his assistant Weebo, a talking miniature flying robot, and created a rubber-like substance called Flubber, which can make objects fly through air. His scientific research has caused him to miss his wedding to fiancée Dr. Sara Jean Reynolds (Marcia Gay Harden), who ends up going out with Professor Wilson Croft (Christopher McDonald). Therefore, Brainard works to get Reynolds back, and deal with a couple of criminals who want their hands on Brainard's scientific work.

I haven't seen The Absent-Minded Professor, so I couldn't compare the two films. But, to evaluate this movie alone, I'd say it is just an average movie with some whimsical fun and silly slapstick comedy, and a plot that really goes all over the place. Williams looks pretty odd in the movie, Harden did an OK job in her role, and McDonald was just plain annoying in his performance. I enjoyed the Weebo character, voiced by The Little Mermaid voice actress Jodi Benson. The little flying robot reminded me of the little aliens in the sci-fi flick *batteries not included, and her little TV screen that shows various Disney cartoon scenes whenever she makes emotions is a clever touch.

Overall, I didn't think it was a really exciting movie, but for its whimsical, slapstick and childish elements, this movie is best left for younger children to enjoy.

Grade C
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hughes knock it off already!
mcfly-312 December 2000
John, please, give it a rest! Home Alone was 7 years ago, yet you continue to remake it seemingly every year. This time Hughes replaces a kiddie with the title glob to bash the adults around in the big finale. And unlike any kid, the flubber is at one point able to race thru a bad guy's anus!! Up until his usual antics, Hughes laughless script revolves around Williams discovery and those who want to steal it. But that's it! It's played out like a drama as that becomes the main plot. Then there's the infamous basketball sequence from the original film years ago, with nothing new put into it. Even the Fred McMurray classic, still kiddie-fied, was at least pleasant as it had fun with the flubber. Here its used to knock stuff over and race around the room and smash into the aforementioned goons. How many times can Hughes remake this lousy formula??!! Quit if for God's sake!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A kids' movie, one which could have been worse, but is still nothing special (at least not for adults)
Electrified_Voltage19 January 2008
I remember watching this film more than once shortly after it came into stores (I would have been around eleven years old at the time), but can't remember exactly what I thought of it, so I obviously didn't absolutely love it or hate it. Would I have watched it years later if I never saw it before? Probably not, and DEFINITELY not for any reason other than Robin Williams' starring role. However, since I had seen it while growing up, I decided to try it again, and unsurprisingly, it turned out to be average overall.

Professor Philip Brainard is an absent-minded professor with a living computer named Weebo that floats through the air as his assistant. He is in love with Dr. Sara Jean Reynolds, the president of Medfield, a college which is in financial trouble. Brainard is busy trying to create a substance that will save the college, and has failed to show up at his attempted wedding more than once. Sara gives him one more chance, and if he fails to show up this time, it will be the last straw! That night, he successfully creates a living green substance which he calls "flubber" (after Weebo says it's "flying rubber"), and it appears this substance will do the trick! Sadly, he also misses the wedding again, and Sara is fed up. Nonetheless, he thinks about how he's going to use flubber to save Medfield College, and tries to once again win the heart of Sara, who is now going out with Wilson Croft, Brainard's rival. Meanwhile, Bennett Hoenicker is a spoiled student whom Brainard has failed, and his father, the extremely wealthy Chester Hoenicker plans to persuade the professor to pass his son!

Robin Williams is a very talented comedian, but that doesn't really show in this movie. He's a bit tamer than you may expect, in the kind of role you may expect one to act crazy in, and he is certainly not very funny. After saying that, I should also point out that "Flubber" as a whole fails as a comedy. I certainly didn't laugh, or even smile very much, and the part that I remember laughing the most at wasn't even supposed to be funny! The scene I'm talking about is the one where Sara says "This is going to be the very last time I try to marry you," which reminds me, the relationship between Philip and Sara is a rather awkward part of the story, and I guess there are problems with the script. The only really good INTENTIONAL gag I can think of is the "Let him have it. Give it to him. No, give it to him. Stop that and give it to him..." one. Another problem I can't forget is the villains, ones which may not belong.

"Flubber" is a remake of the 1961 Disney film, "The Absent Minded Professor", which I haven't seen (I didn't even know "Flubber" was a remake until around the time I last saw it), but know the 1961 original is generally considered superior. Well, it is a common thing for remakes to be inferior to their predecessors (I'm certainly not saying they always are, but it's not uncommon for fans of the original to be disappointed to some degree by the remake), and I'm sure this one is no exception. Whether you've seen "The Absent Minded Professor" or not, and whether you like it or not if you have seen it, you have to remember that "Flubber" is a kids' movie, and for most adults, other than parents, it is an insignificant flick, and probably not worth it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This, in my opinion, is Robin Williams' funniest movie of all-time.
TheHonestCritic10 September 2019
"Flubber" (1997), this is one of the first movies I've seen in a movie theater. What a great movie this was when I first watched it! I have seen the original version; "The Absent Minded Professor" (1961) with Fred MacMurry. As much as I enjoy that film, I love the remake even more. Yes, this is a rare example where a remake is better than the original. Robin Williams pulls off the role of Phillip Brainard perfectly, and the rest of the cast is brilliant as well! "Flubber" has a perfect story, perfect acting, perfect sets/locations, perfect special effects and of course a perfect soundtrack. This movie fires on all cylinders, and it's classified as a perfect movie by my standards! If you have children, make sure you show them this movie. Although, I can see anyone at any age watching it for the first time and enjoying it. This, in my opinion, is Robin Williams' best comedic performance. I could watch it over and over and never get tired of it! Obviously, I give this film a full 5 out of 5 star rating, which equates to 10 out of 10 IMDB stars. If you haven't seen "Flubber", what are you waiting for? You must check it out! Also to wrap up my review, let's give a moment of silence for one of the funniest comedians of all-time, Robin Williams. Thank you for all the movies and laughs you gave us throughout your phenomenal film career. Rest in peace, Robin Williams.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A silly science-fiction movie
anselmdaniel24 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains spoilers.

Flubber is a comedy movie that premiered in 1997. The movie is based on the stories "A Situation of Gravity" by Samuel W. Taylor and The Absent-Minded Professor (1961) by Bill Walsh. The movie is directed by Les Mayfield and stars Robin Williams, and Marcia Gay Harden. The movie centers around Professor Philip Brainard. The professor creates a new substance that he hopes to use to save the college from closure.

Flubber is an incredibly silly movie. This is warranted from its PG rating by the MPAA. The movie is a classic formula from Disney. There are not any plot twists that occur in this movie. Everything is predictable and stable. The movie is still not boring because of this. It has fun moments that the entire family can enjoy. It makes for a movie that is a general crowd pleaser rather than a movie that has something important to say. Disney movies tend to have a family focused message and this movie is no different.

The one surprise in the movie is from Weebo. The movie does hint at something new developing in the artificial intelligence but this ultimately does not go anywhere important. It sets the stage for the ending but it does not develop it into a deeper theme. The movie emphasizes the strange nature of Professor Philip Brainard but it still emphasizes the traditional Disney formula.

The movie is incredibly fun to watch. The movie has an electric style both from the Flubber substance that is created and from the cast. It really does seem like the cast is having fun with the silliness that is present in this movie. It makes for a movie that can be enjoyable to watch if one suspends their disbelief.

I would recommend 'Flubber' to an audience that is willing to turn their brain off and enjoy the comedy. It is an overall enjoyable movie.

Three stars out of four stars for 'Flubber'.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed