The scientist father of a teenage girl and boy accidentally shrinks his and two other neighborhood teens to the size of insects. Now the teens must fight diminutive dangers as the father searches for them.
Professor Phillip Brainard, an absent-minded professor, works with his assistant Weebo, trying to create a substance that's a new source of energy and that will save Medfield College where his sweetheart Sara is the president. He has missed his wedding twice, and on the afternoon of his third wedding, Professor Brainard creates flubber, which allows objects to fly through the air. It looks like rubber, so he calls it flubber. This film is based on the 1961 Disney classic, "The Absent-Minded Professor.Written by
Sound designer Andrew M. Somers created the sound of Flubber by using a rubber balloon filled with water, Metamucil, and air. The Metamucil became "gloopy" and in the balloon, it helped make a rubbery, gurgly sound. The voice of Flubber, performed by Scott Martin Gershin, was processed to raise the pitch in order to sound small and squeaky. See more »
The chess board in the kitchen is set up "sideways" - the white corner square should be on the right side. See more »
Still somewhat enjoyable as a kids movie but it had more potential really.
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.
7 of 13 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this