Flubber - Un professore tra le nuvole

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.

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.

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.

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

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.