Home
IMDb > Flubber (1997) > IMDb user comments
Flubber
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videoscast e troupe completicuriositàofficial sitesfrasi memorabili
Overview
Info principalidettagli combinaticast e troupe completiProduzione/Distribuzionetv schedule
Premi & e recensioni
Recensioni utenticommento/recensioneRecensioni dai NewsgroupawardsVotiparents guidealtri film raccomandatimessage board
Trama & Frasi
riassunto della tramaplot synopsisparole chiaveRecensione Amazon.comfrasi memorabili
Info divertenti
curiositàerroricolonna sonoratitoli pazziversioni alternativeCollegamenti ad altri filmFAQ
Incassi & e altre info
acquisto di prodottibox office/businessdate di uscitaluoghi delle ripresespecifiche tecnicheversione laserdiscversione DVDinformazioni bibliograficheNewsDesk
Materiale promozionale
slogan trailers and videos poster e link Galleria fotografica
Link esterni
link di cinemaofficial sitesvariefotografiesound clipsvideo clips

IMDb user comments for
Flubber (1997) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 49 comments in total 

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Mildly amusing kids film, 23 gennaio 2002
Author: bob the moo da Birmingham, UK

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
It was great except for one thing..., 9 novembre 2005
8/10
Author: Sweetestsixteen da United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

If you're looking for a great family film then this is it! The characters are great. The professor was very funny and sweet so whenever he feels sad you feel his pain. Webo the flying robot is also funny and the close relationship between her and the professor really brings a family feel to the movie. But when they experienced a great loss later on in the film, their relationship began to make me feel a little comfortable. When I was younger I remember feeling so sad but eight years later as teenager that part of the film was simply weird. I found the professor's wife was rude and annoying until the end and her partner (when her and the professor break up) is just as funny as the professor. Seeing the way they try and disguise their hate for one another was a good laugh.

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

Judge for yourself. Watch it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
When your most interesting character is a computer, you've got problems., 14 novembre 2005
5/10
Author: James Hitchcock da Tunbridge Wells, England

"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

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Entertaining and visually impressive, the film nevertheless falls short of the joyous satisfaction found in the original AMP, 23 agosto 2007
6/10
Author: Amy Adler da Toledo, Ohio

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Still somewhat enjoyable as a kids movie but it had more potential really., 29 aprile 2006
5/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 da Groningen, The Netherlands

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

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Fun Mainly For The Kids, 12 marzo 2007
7/10
Author: ccthemovieman-1 da Lockport, NY, United States

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Great talent,dry story., 10 ottobre 2001
5/10
Author: SmileysWorld da United States

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Gives Remakes a Bad Name, 22 agosto 2008
Author: eu-51 da Hong Kong

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

You can be disappointed even when you are not expecting much. There was no fault in wishing to share "The AbsentMinded Professor" with a later generation, but it had to be remade. With Robin Williams replacing Fred MacMurray, the professor could be more boisterous and physical. With 1997 replacing 1961, the special effects could be much more sophisticated. So it's win-win, right? No, but a few things did go right. Two things, actually. Robin Williams had one good scene. In the opening, Dr. Brainard is introduced as a man who is so out of touch with his surroundings that he could step into the wrong lecture hall and deliver an elementary physics lecture to an art class. Other than that, the role and the actor were forgettable. Also, the Danny Elfman soundtrack was very lively, particularly the Flubber Rumba.

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

These days, movie makers are free to do quite a few things that were not allowed in 1961. Unfortunately, many of them feel a need to remind us by including a gratuitously vulgar scene in everything they release. This time we get a man blowing flubber out his rectum. It was as if to say, "Take that! We've already got your money!"

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a great movie, but a funny one, 6 giugno 2008
7/10
Author: Atreyu_II da Fantasia

"Flubber" is nothing special or extraordinary, but it is a funny one although, for such, it's important not to take it too seriously, otherwise...

While certainly not a great movie, the movie is very underrated and for sure not as bad as many people make it sound. It's one of those movies which I think people tend to exaggerate on their criticisms. Of course that this is just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me, as long you respect my opinion in return.

This is kind of a silly comedy, one of those made purely for laughing, fun and entertainment - its major priorities. To make sure it would be a crazy comedy, they chose «the man of the 1000 voices», Robin Williams, as the absent-minded/nutty scientist professor Philip Brainard. The result is, of course, a real scream, with this actor in a funny role instead of certain ridiculous roles he plays (such as that in "Birdcage"). Anyway, lots of humorous gags and laughs are a guarantee in this movie, even if the movie isn't super.

Nevertheless, I seriously think that its biggest strenght is on its first half, while the second half is less funny, become a bit more ridiculous. But in general it is a watchable movie, one that is not as bad as you might think and also without bad stuff or bad surprises. I loved the Weebo character, just for the record.

I confess that I never saw the original movie and I didn't know this was a "remake" of an old movie. But I hope to see the original sometime and compare them both.

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
As good as i remember it!, 29 giugno 2008
7/10
Author: Aaron Hassard da United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I remember one Christmas i wanted this film, it was 1998, i was 4 years old. I don't know what attracted me to this film, i don't even think there was a cinema near me when this film was out. It must've been an ad on TV or something, i can't remember but at least i got it in the end!

My mum says i watched it loads of times, that's probably true. Then i stopped watching it, don't know why i can't remember. Now, the video's lost, and for some reason i've never bothered to by the DVD.

Then, as i was reading the TV Guide, i realised it was on BBC1 on Sunday afternoon, of course not having seen it in years and years i decided to watch it, and it was still as enjoyable as it always was! Well okay, i probably enjoyed it a lot more when i was little but i still like it now! I definitely going to get my hands on that DVD someday.

The film it's self is about a professor in financial trouble who invents a strange rubber substance with a life of it's own in an attempt to solve his money problems. However, his plan takes an unexpected turn, leading to all sorts of crazy happenings!

So overall, this film is fun and suitable for the whole family.

7/10

Was the above comment useful to you?


Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another comment


Related Links

Plot summary Recensione Amazon.com Voti
Premi Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Dettagli principali
Your user comments Your vote history