Flubber (1997)

reviewed by
Ted Prigge


FLUBBER (1997)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge

Director: Les Mayfield Writers: John Hughes and Bill Walsh (based on the 1961 film "The Absent Minded Professor" by Bill Walsh) Starring: Robin Williams, Marcia Gay Harden, Christopher McDonald, Raymond J. Barry, Clancy Brown, Ted Levine, Will Wheaton, Edie McClurg, Jodi Benson

"Flubber" is the second best example of how to take all the life out of a film remake an adaptation, and hysterically enough both were distributed by Disney. It's the kind of film that may be slightly entertaining to tiny kids, but anyone else will feel left out as it's boring, slow, and incredibly lifeless. What could be a film with cinematic magic is instead dead in the water, and it's a shame because it could have been a great film. Hypothetically, I mean.

"Flubber," as you probably know, is a remake of the Disney Classic I never saw, "The Absent Minded Professor," where a, well, absent minded professor played by Fred McMurray created an erratic substance known as "Flubber," you know, flying rubber? The new one keeps the basic plot, but appears to have added a lot else, like more absent-mindedness on the part of the proffessor, some more villains, and several "show-stopping" moments, like a big rumba with the flubber, and some more elaborate setups, none which really make it any better, but instead make it worse.

The basic plot revolves around a college professor, Philip Brainerd (Robin Williams), who creates lots and lots of inventions, but is sadly absent minded. In fact, he's forgotten his wedding to the college's president, Sara Jean Reynolds (indie actress Marcia Gay Harden), two times before he forgets it again at the beginning. Doesn't this warrant some kind of mental treatment?

Anyway, on his wedding day (the third one), he invents the Flubber, which not only bounces off of everything like a super ball on speed, but can also change shape like the aliens in water form in "The Abyss." Philip believes that this invention, once fully realized, will save his college, which is in threat of being shut down by a millionaire tycoon/villain, Chester Hoenicker (Raymond J. Barry), which is ironically enough the same college his brat son (Will Wheaton - thought he was dead) goes to.

Through a plot twist, Hoenicker's goons, named Smith and Wesson (ha ha - what a great sense of humor this film has) who are played by Clancy Brown and Ted Levine (both who needed the pay check), discover it the hard way, and try to steal for Hoenicker, who wants it just 'cause he's evil enough.

A sub-plot involves Philip's attempts to win back Sara, who's angry at him (and with good reason), but who is being seduced by who is basically Philip's Belloq, Wilson Croft (Christopher McDonald, playing the hysterically suave-yet-unsuave asswhole once again). And in another subplot, Philip's day-timer robot, Weebo (voiced by the one-and-only Jodi Benson), falls in love with him. Yuckity-yuck.

What's most pathetic about this film is how dull it is. You don't need to be a cynical college student to be able to see right through this film, which is another in a long line of cheap attempts at making a quick buck by Disney, who have essentially become the Puff Daddy of the film industry, half-assedly re-mixing classics (or non-classics) for distribution to the general public, who sadly eats it all up. Earlier in '97, they released "Jungle 2 Jungle," an adaptation of a really awful French film, "Un Indien Dans la Ville," which, yeah, improved over the original, but not by much. Disney's in about as bad shape as Warner Brothers right now, only creatively.

In the rush to ship out a film for distribution, Disney has forgotten to give this film a little thing called "magic." Such scenes as dancing flubber, a flying car, a basketball team that pretty much sucks flying all around thanks to some carefully placed flubber, and an elaborate ending all fail to amaze, delight, or even cause people to laugh. I sat there the entire film stone faced, chuckling perhaps twice, and shaking my head at all the bad jokes. Who could really laugh at a scene where Philip enters the wrong classroom and starts teaching chemistry? Didn't think so.

It doesn't help that our protagonist is essentially unfunny or even really respectable. Philip is not a lovable absent minded professory, just a really dumb man being played by Robin Williams. Williams is a brilliant comic actor...okay, a brilliant actor in general, but here he's given very little to do but occasionally get hyper over something, and other times act sad. Those times, he's not bad. But what are we supposed to think of a man who's forgotten his wedding thrice? Maybe it was funny and/or respectable in the 60s...

I like Disney, and I usually enjoy their films, not only animated but live action, and their recent films (save for "Hercules," which was good, but not great) have been worse than lackluster, they've been pathetic. "Jungle 2 Jungle" is probably the worst film I saw last year. "Flubber"'s probably second. What do they need to do? Perhaps create something new. Get writers who can write something that's universally entertaining. Films like "The Parent Trap" and "Mary Poppins" are films that are live action (or in the latter case a mix of both), but even I can still watch them because they're not only written to be magical to children, but to be fun to adults. What's more torturous that taking a child to a film that insults you and annoys you at every turn?

And my god, couldn't they have done something else with Edie McClurg?

MY RATING (out of 4): *

Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/


The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews