Flubber
Reviewed by: Dave Rettig
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Average |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | 10 to Adult |
| Genre: | Comedy |
| Length: | |
| Year of Release: | 1997 |
| USA Release: |
| Featuring | Robin Williams, Marcia Gay Harden, Christopher McDonald, Wil Wheaton, Raymond J. Barry, Clancy Brown, Ted Levine, Scott Michael Campbell |
| Director |
Les Mayfield |
| Producer | |
| Distributor |
Welcome to the world of Flubber, where Dr. Brainard’s mighty flighty mind creates intelligent robots and flying rubber. Brainard’s awesome scientific faculties come at a price, for Brainard (Robin Williams) is so incredibly absent-minded that while working on his latest invention he inadvertently misses his wedding… again. Sara Jean Reynolds (Marcia Gay Harden), the bride-to-be, left standing at the altar for the third time, leave Brainard and his newly discovered flying rubber, flubber. Can the absent minded professor regain his lost love? Will flubber be a hit? Can our hero save his college from financial collapse? Disney’s answers each of these unrelenting questions in Flubber.
Robin William’s incredible comic talent combined with the superb flubber effects could not save this rehashed remake of “The Absent Minded Professor” (1961). The script is piecemeal, possibly more of an afterthought. It seems as though Disney wanted to incorporate nifty new special effects into the 1961 script so rather than rewrite to add originality, some semblance of continuity, and the mere speck of believability, they just added flying, dancing, cooing green goo to the original film. However, “Flubber” does contain a plethora of cutsey characters, silly antics, and breaking things to delight a very young audience.
“Flubber” contains nudity and some off-color humor that could be considered offensive. However, what offended me most was the extent Disney would twist a plot line to add some offensive content to an otherwise clean film! The aforementioned nudity is a scene in which the bumbling Brainard walks into a life art class and begins teaching physics. The life art subjects? A nude man, a nude woman and a large bowl of fruit. Although the subjects quickly cover themselves (the movie does not contain live nudity), the sketches done by students are in clear camera view. This scene was completely unnecessary to the story and the movie would have been just as amusing if Brainard had walked into a music class or an empty class; however, Disney’s was not going for lively laughs but sexual snickers. Offensive content hidden amidst humor does more damage than just being offended.
If it weren’t for the brief nude sketches, I would have no problem recommending this to very young children. The lack of original or believable story line would pass them by as they delighted in the variety of adorable inventions of Brainard. However, I hesitate to recommend this for the sole reason that mixing sexual content with humor desensitizes people (both children and adults) to the offensive nature of the scene. The poor script and lack of original humor makes this a poor choice for a discerning adults. Pass on “Flubber” and instead rent “The Absent Minded Professor”!
Was I ever dissapointed. I agree with Dave Rettig, “the poor script and lack of original humor makes this a poor choice for a discerning adults.”
Nor did any of the 5th graders I talked to see it. Yes, I knew (from the reviews and comments) that it was not a “live nude” scene, that the nudity appeared on the canvases of the art students, but none of us was able to see it. Maybe it was too fast to see. Whatever the reason, we enjoyed the movie, and I worried for nothing. It’s a good movie. Take the kids. If there’s a “nude” scene, it’s too quick for most people to even notice.
With movie moments like these, one must wonder if the cable TV ads are an honest attempt at promoting family-friendly programming, or just another marketing scheme. As a family, we used to trust that most Disney programming was appropriate for our children, but now find it absolutely necessary to regularly review the prime-time Disney programming slate and “cut out” the offensive/inappropriate programming. What a shame that when it comes to quality family entertainment, “Flubber” and some of the other Disney remakes of late are lackluster at best. Too bad—Walt would be so sad.
I’m 13 and I thought that movie was stupid. Although there were a couple parts where I laughed I didn’t find it all that ammusing. Although, my little 7 year old cousin and my sister (who’s 10) thought it was really great. They cracked up at the cute little flubber, and talked about it forever.
I think the movie is geared toward younger children, and long as they know about the human body (so they undertood what was going on in that art class sceen)… they would like it. As for all you parents and the movie… I’m sorry but I guess that’s just part of being a parent :o)
I also agree that there was no good story line; there were some good comedy scenes, but the movie did not flow very well. As an adult, I was bored for the most part. My children (and I) did enjoy some of the comedy scenes, but even they were bored by the story. There was so much potential in this movie, but, in my opinion, Disney failed again. Were they after only the big bucks associated with a holiday release??
My recommendation would be save your money and wait until it comes out on video, if you do that at least you can edit past the objectionable scene mentioned above. The movie should have been called “Flubbed It Again.”