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
95 Reviews
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
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
"You're in big trouble though, pal. I eat pieces of **** like you for breakfast!"
JuniorAndTwinsFanForLife22 November 2022
Robin Williams is a comedic genius, but this is one of his more forgettable films. He's an extraordinary talent, but his character in "Flubber" just lacks that charming, classic Robin Williams magic.
The antagonists are also quite lacking. There's a duo of two doofus goons, a derivative plot device used in almost every kids movie from the 90's. The standout villain is the guy who plays Shooter McGavin. I don't know his real name, but in this movie he steals the show by trying to pull up on Robin Williams's girl in typical Shooter McGavin style.
One notable scene is when Robin Williams throws an apple at the back of Shooter McGavin's head. The scene pays homage to several years prior when Robin Williams threw the lime at the back of Pierce Brosnan's head in "Mrs. Doubtfire".
Anyway, speaking of people getting hit in the head, you'll notice this is an overly recurring antic. Everyone keeps getting hit in the head with something: golf balls, bowling balls, basketballs, apples, punches, kicks, it just goes on and on. It was funny the first few times but after the 27th instance it becomes tiresome and lazy.
Overall "Flubber" is an unremarkable Robin Williams film. 5/10. Stick with "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "Happy Gilmore".
The antagonists are also quite lacking. There's a duo of two doofus goons, a derivative plot device used in almost every kids movie from the 90's. The standout villain is the guy who plays Shooter McGavin. I don't know his real name, but in this movie he steals the show by trying to pull up on Robin Williams's girl in typical Shooter McGavin style.
One notable scene is when Robin Williams throws an apple at the back of Shooter McGavin's head. The scene pays homage to several years prior when Robin Williams threw the lime at the back of Pierce Brosnan's head in "Mrs. Doubtfire".
Anyway, speaking of people getting hit in the head, you'll notice this is an overly recurring antic. Everyone keeps getting hit in the head with something: golf balls, bowling balls, basketballs, apples, punches, kicks, it just goes on and on. It was funny the first few times but after the 27th instance it becomes tiresome and lazy.
Overall "Flubber" is an unremarkable Robin Williams film. 5/10. Stick with "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "Happy Gilmore".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good possibilities that don't pan out
SnoopyStyle31 January 2015
Phillip Brainard (Robin Williams) is the absent-minded professor. Chester Hoenicker (Raymond J. Barry) threatens to close the college run by his girlfriend president Sara Jean Reynolds (Marcia Gay Harden). He keeps forgetting to go to their wedding and she vows that this is the last attempt. His work with a new compound as an energy source can save their college. He has a mechanical assistant Weebo. His hated old partner Wilson Croft (Christopher McDonald) visits after stealing all of his ideas and now is after Sara. Chester's son Bennett (Wil Wheaton) is failing Brainard's class and he expected his father had already bought the grades. Chester sends his henchmen Smith (Clancy Brown) and Wesson (Ted Levine).
There are a lot of good possibilities that don't pan out. Weebo is not cute and a bit of an annoying jealous brat. There is an uncomfortable man-machine love story. Also he has a flying robot. HE HAS A FLYING ROBOT! That is probably enough to keep the college going. Professor Brainard is not lovable enough. Christopher McDonald is too good at being creepy and I can't buy anybody even liking the guy. MGH is not likable either. There are too many broadly unlikeable characters. The Flubber itself is fun for a little while and Williams has good imaginary chemistry with an imaginary object. It allows him to have some physical humor. Although it gets very repetitive. There is only so much Home Alone slapstick that should be repeated. It's also very stupid that people saw the basketball game without figuring it out. This should be funnier but it's not.
There are a lot of good possibilities that don't pan out. Weebo is not cute and a bit of an annoying jealous brat. There is an uncomfortable man-machine love story. Also he has a flying robot. HE HAS A FLYING ROBOT! That is probably enough to keep the college going. Professor Brainard is not lovable enough. Christopher McDonald is too good at being creepy and I can't buy anybody even liking the guy. MGH is not likable either. There are too many broadly unlikeable characters. The Flubber itself is fun for a little while and Williams has good imaginary chemistry with an imaginary object. It allows him to have some physical humor. Although it gets very repetitive. There is only so much Home Alone slapstick that should be repeated. It's also very stupid that people saw the basketball game without figuring it out. This should be funnier but it's not.
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.
Quixotic Movie
daisukereds18 July 2021
A very basic and childish movie. It's fast paced, chaotic and nonsensical.. enough to keep the kids interested. As a grown up, it might make your eyes roll a few times.
There's not much to say other than it makes little sense, specially when the invention of a flying car comes AFTER the flying talking and sentient AI robot. Even as a Robin Williams film, this isn't particularly fun or worth a watch. Marcia Gay Harden and Christopher McDonald look too much like brother to make it awkward when they are "romantically involved". And the bad guy and plot are like 20 minutes of the movie. Wil Wheaton is hilariously bad (as he often is).
I'm inclined to seek out and watch the "Absent-Minded Professor" (1961), since this is a remake of that (thing I didn't know until recently).. and looks apt for the time it was made. Which might explain why this 1997 adaptation doesn't work for me at all.
There's not much to say other than it makes little sense, specially when the invention of a flying car comes AFTER the flying talking and sentient AI robot. Even as a Robin Williams film, this isn't particularly fun or worth a watch. Marcia Gay Harden and Christopher McDonald look too much like brother to make it awkward when they are "romantically involved". And the bad guy and plot are like 20 minutes of the movie. Wil Wheaton is hilariously bad (as he often is).
I'm inclined to seek out and watch the "Absent-Minded Professor" (1961), since this is a remake of that (thing I didn't know until recently).. and looks apt for the time it was made. Which might explain why this 1997 adaptation doesn't work for me at all.
It's a Live-Action Cartoon
PyroSikTh8 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Flubber follows a scatty-brained college professor and inventor, played by Robin Williams, who is on the brink of a world-changing breakthrough. Much to the annoyance of his fiancée, he misses their third (THIRD!) failed wedding attempt to finally unlock the last piece of the puzzle, and creating a green, rubbery substance with near limitless bounciness as a result. The rest of the movie follows this professor as he explores the possibilities of this substance, tries to sell it off to keep their financially failing college afloat, and tries to win his wife-to-be back from a rival scientist. All of this involves rigging a college basketball game, making a flying car, and fighting off greedy businessmen.
As plots go, Flubber is pretty diabolical. Nothing in this movie seems to make sense. This dude slaves away to make this magical substance that'll change the world, when he already seems to have mastered robotics even beyond today's standards, twenty-three years later. The college basketball team is made up entirely of 5' nerds, as if the college doesn't have its own sports division, and apparently science majors make better basketball players than artists? The greedy businessman has a chip on his shoulder because his spoiled son wasn't allowed on said basketball team because his grades weren't good enough, but he was clearly more athletic than anyone on that team, so I'm not really sure what relevance his bad grades had. And the whole romance subplot? How has their relationship functioned up to this point? I get it's Disney in the 90s and seeing two characters cohabiting before marriage was a big no-no, but this guy misses THREE of his own weddings to the same woman. At the end he gets one of his robots to stand in for him for their fourth attempt while he continues sciencing at home. How has she not got to the point of physically dragging him to the altar yet? In a very heartfelt speech, Robin Williams explains how his love for this woman is what makes him so scatterbrained, but surely that can't apply to actually marrying her? Hey darling, I just love you so much I can't think and forget what I'm doing, including how much I love you...?
But seriously, you're not watching Flubber for its plot. This is a live-action cartoon for kids. As fun as writing that rant out was, it's totally irrelevant to the movie's aim, which is to give kids a good laugh. Flubber's humour is almost entirely slapstick, with all manner of characters getting hit in the face with various items, over and over and over. There are a few more nuanced moments of humour, but they're never quite enough to keep the adults entertained. I can confirm my seven year old found it as gut-bustingly hilarious as I did twenty years ago though, so it absolutely hits its mark.
And Flubber isn't an entirely soulless affair either, with most of its character and charm coming from the secretary-type robot Weebo. In fact you could argue this character gets the most development. She spends her nights imagining herself as a human, creates pastiche people out of magazine clippings, turns them into holograms, and then imagines seducing the professor with them. She's a lovestruck A.I. who realises that to make the target of her affections happy, she's going to have to let him go. All of this makes Weebo the most charming, sympathetic, and relatable character in the whole movie, and means her eventual fate hits the heartstrings pretty hard. For a movie devoid of sensible plotting and slapstick humour to have genuine emotional investment in a characters death is a testament to how great that character is.
Flubber is not a great movie. Even for kids there are better movies out there; funnier movies, more meaningful movies, more important movies, more memorable movies. But Flubber achieves everything it set out to do and even had a couple of surprises to boot. It hasn't aged well at all, coming from an age when live-action cartoons actually kind of worked, but it is inventive and has some classic Robin Williams moments. My son gave it a gut-busting 8/10. I err more critically and give it a better-than-average 6/10.
As plots go, Flubber is pretty diabolical. Nothing in this movie seems to make sense. This dude slaves away to make this magical substance that'll change the world, when he already seems to have mastered robotics even beyond today's standards, twenty-three years later. The college basketball team is made up entirely of 5' nerds, as if the college doesn't have its own sports division, and apparently science majors make better basketball players than artists? The greedy businessman has a chip on his shoulder because his spoiled son wasn't allowed on said basketball team because his grades weren't good enough, but he was clearly more athletic than anyone on that team, so I'm not really sure what relevance his bad grades had. And the whole romance subplot? How has their relationship functioned up to this point? I get it's Disney in the 90s and seeing two characters cohabiting before marriage was a big no-no, but this guy misses THREE of his own weddings to the same woman. At the end he gets one of his robots to stand in for him for their fourth attempt while he continues sciencing at home. How has she not got to the point of physically dragging him to the altar yet? In a very heartfelt speech, Robin Williams explains how his love for this woman is what makes him so scatterbrained, but surely that can't apply to actually marrying her? Hey darling, I just love you so much I can't think and forget what I'm doing, including how much I love you...?
But seriously, you're not watching Flubber for its plot. This is a live-action cartoon for kids. As fun as writing that rant out was, it's totally irrelevant to the movie's aim, which is to give kids a good laugh. Flubber's humour is almost entirely slapstick, with all manner of characters getting hit in the face with various items, over and over and over. There are a few more nuanced moments of humour, but they're never quite enough to keep the adults entertained. I can confirm my seven year old found it as gut-bustingly hilarious as I did twenty years ago though, so it absolutely hits its mark.
And Flubber isn't an entirely soulless affair either, with most of its character and charm coming from the secretary-type robot Weebo. In fact you could argue this character gets the most development. She spends her nights imagining herself as a human, creates pastiche people out of magazine clippings, turns them into holograms, and then imagines seducing the professor with them. She's a lovestruck A.I. who realises that to make the target of her affections happy, she's going to have to let him go. All of this makes Weebo the most charming, sympathetic, and relatable character in the whole movie, and means her eventual fate hits the heartstrings pretty hard. For a movie devoid of sensible plotting and slapstick humour to have genuine emotional investment in a characters death is a testament to how great that character is.
Flubber is not a great movie. Even for kids there are better movies out there; funnier movies, more meaningful movies, more important movies, more memorable movies. But Flubber achieves everything it set out to do and even had a couple of surprises to boot. It hasn't aged well at all, coming from an age when live-action cartoons actually kind of worked, but it is inventive and has some classic Robin Williams moments. My son gave it a gut-busting 8/10. I err more critically and give it a better-than-average 6/10.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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/
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/
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.
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...?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Entertaining smash hit
MovieFan98329 December 1998
Not really all that great
The-Sarkologist9 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Hmm, I was told that this movie is cute, and cute it is, but it is not the best that I have seen. I must admit that Robin Williams is a funny guy, but this is not one of his funniest movies. The best scene in the movie was when he walks into a life drawing class thinking that it is his physics class and goes ahead and teaches. Other than that this movie is rather ordinary with lots of clichés to fill it up. I enjoyed it, a bit, but I have seen better.
Basically, a college is about to be shut down and Robin Williams is an absent minded professor who has missed his wedding three times. It is interesting that he has a robot that is in love with him and is forcing him not to marry the woman who he loves. This is all very cute but I thought that it was a little silly. The professor is very smart but, as is introduced rather quickly, somebody else always steals his ideas and gets the fame for it. The guy is basically the bad guy who is milking the professor for all he is worth. Then there is the corporate boss who thinks that solving problems is done by throwing money at it. He wants his kid to get straight A's so he throws money at it.
When we look at the movie we see once again the theme of the American Dream. Everybody can become happy and rich if they simply work at it. All problems can be over come by ones own ability and that the end is always happy. This is a very shallow and idealistic theme which generally annoys me. Even though, Flubber is a kids movie though it has a few interesting scenes thrown in to keep the adults interested, because it is the adults that must take their kids to see the movie. Flubber is a Walt Disney movie, and I generally don't like Disney for some unknown reason, I guess because it is reaching into the minds of children and manipulating them into clones of themselves. All of us who grew up on Disney has been forced into a Disney mindset. I am far more critical of children's movies, and those who specialise in them, because our children follow them more than adults. Adults watch movies, children believe movies.
Basically, a college is about to be shut down and Robin Williams is an absent minded professor who has missed his wedding three times. It is interesting that he has a robot that is in love with him and is forcing him not to marry the woman who he loves. This is all very cute but I thought that it was a little silly. The professor is very smart but, as is introduced rather quickly, somebody else always steals his ideas and gets the fame for it. The guy is basically the bad guy who is milking the professor for all he is worth. Then there is the corporate boss who thinks that solving problems is done by throwing money at it. He wants his kid to get straight A's so he throws money at it.
When we look at the movie we see once again the theme of the American Dream. Everybody can become happy and rich if they simply work at it. All problems can be over come by ones own ability and that the end is always happy. This is a very shallow and idealistic theme which generally annoys me. Even though, Flubber is a kids movie though it has a few interesting scenes thrown in to keep the adults interested, because it is the adults that must take their kids to see the movie. Flubber is a Walt Disney movie, and I generally don't like Disney for some unknown reason, I guess because it is reaching into the minds of children and manipulating them into clones of themselves. All of us who grew up on Disney has been forced into a Disney mindset. I am far more critical of children's movies, and those who specialise in them, because our children follow them more than adults. Adults watch movies, children believe movies.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
