Flubber (1997) Poster

(1997)

User Reviews

Review this title
67 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
16 out of 18 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 36 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 27 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.
3 out of 3 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.
13 out of 20 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 17 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?
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A truly underrated comedy classic!
TheLastStop4115 February 2002
I don't know what's with everybody, but I think this a great Robin Williams flick, and is truly underrated. It's been a while since I last saw this film before today. When I watched the movie, I forgot how funny the movie was. I was rolling by how funny some of the gags made in this movie. It's definitely worth more than a 4.7. I really didn't see what was so bad about the movie. It's definitely worth it for your whole family to take a look at. It may not be the best comedy of 1997 (Liar Liar is. Hands down.), but it's definitely the best Disney comedy in a long time. It's also John Hughes best since Home Alone. John Hughes best of all is Save Ferris! (Ferris Bueller's Day Off). But anyways, if you want to see a good clean comedy, see Flubber, because I thought it was a very entertaining Disney flick (and I'm fourteen) so that's showing something that it's not just for kids. It can also be for teens and adults. A movie highly recommended! 10/10. But as for the average it's not a movie everyone will vote a ten. As the average, it desrves from 6.5-7.0/10. Not a 4.7.
6 out of 10 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
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
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
14 out of 32 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.
16 out of 39 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.
6 out of 12 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...?
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Flubber review
maddiebuggie27 April 2020
I watched this movie when I was a kid. It was good from what I remember. But it wasn't a story a watched super much as a children. I loved that this movie was about a scientist. That was cool. I think everyone should watch this at least one in their life.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good
mfellipecampos16 February 2020
Flubber - Uma Invenção Desmiolada is brilliant and relaxed from the 1961 remake of The Fantastic Superman! Phillip Brainard (Robin Williams) is a badly awkward inventor and tries everything to reconcile with his fiancee and save the city college, even though it's a movie it's not a big deal anymore it's good ... I don't understand Rotten Tomatoes put 15% approval of the film is good and I recommend watching it with your family will bring nostalgia and laughter.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
LOVED this as a child.
TeddySmashings6 February 2020
I'm giving it a 7 because as a child it was an absolute 10/10 but can appreciate as an adult it wasnt the best probably a 6/10 so decided on 7. I think any child under 10 will be absolutely creased with laughing throughout.
1 out of 1 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
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 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Is there any vote lower than a 1?
LAWigley8 January 1999
This is an abysmal remake. The script is horrid. Robin Williams

flops. Time is too valuable to waste on this movie
4 out of 9 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)
Beta_Gallinger19 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
4/10
Dull Story, Was Not Close To Its Potential
peterwixongb16 September 2021
Flubber had a lot of potential, but this storyline was just not good and made no sense some of the time. There were very few moments dialogue wise where I felt like I was in the story with the characters. Just poorly written. Near the end I almost fell asleep, it was just getting very dull and the film is only about an hour and a half.

Overall, 4/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fun moments but not much else
briancham199426 September 2020
This film is like an endless gag reel. If you view it as just physical comedy, you won't be disappointed with all its comedic moments. Beyond that, the story and characters are barebones and just exist to set up all the slapstick. You get what you expect.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining, enjoyable, and fun
HabibieHakim12321 July 2020
"Some scene are great, some scene are very boring, but it's still enjoyable, Robin Williams as usual he is very funny guy, not a Robin Williams good perfomance ever and not a Robin Williams bad performance ever, it just a fun movie"
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