---
title: "Flubber: the reviews"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/flubber/reviews"
title_page: "https://film.one/film/flubber"
critics_score: 59
critics_reviews: 7
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Flubber (1997): what the critics said

Critics' score 59 from 7 reviews: 1 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative.

Most critics find Flubber pleasant, good-natured family entertainment, and most stop there. The praise clusters on the effects: the computer-generated flubber is singled out as lively and well integrated with the story, and even the harsher reviews credit the effects artists with the film’s best work. Robin Williams gets a steady, modest round of approval, and one review notes a more restrained performance than he usually gives.

The reservations are about everything around the green stuff. Several reviews find the story thin and the set-up familiar, and the comedy itself is judged to fall short more often than it lands. The spread is moderate rather than wide: five of the seven land in the middle, with Variety the only firm recommendation and Eye for Film the only outright dismissal, finding the film story-poor and tired despite its effects. Roger Ebert sits between them, finding little beyond Williams’s energy to enjoy.

## Variety — Joe Leydon

Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 21 November 1997. 

Leydon finds the film funny, brisk family entertainment and an unusually successful Disney remake. He especially praises the lively, computer-generated Flubber and the integration of its effects with the story.

[Read the review](https://variety.com/1997/film/reviews/flubber-1117339911/)

## Empire — Caroline Westbrook

Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 

Westbrook finds the film pleasant, good-natured entertainment, though its story and effects feel familiar. She singles out its entertaining set pieces and restrained sentimentality as its strengths.

[Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/flubber-review/)

## The New York Times — Janet Maslin

Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 26 November 1997. 

The review text is inaccessible, so its verdict cannot be established. No praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the available page.

[Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/26/movies/film-review-high-tech-gunk-returns-splat.html)

## Time Out — WH

Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 

The page identifies this as a film review, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined.

[Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/flubber)

## Radio Times — John Ferguson

Rating 3/5. 

Ferguson describes the film as a smart update of the original, though the three-star rating suggests a qualified verdict. He singles out its sophisticated special effects as part of the remake’s appeal.

[Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-v6xqyy/flubber/)

## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert

Rating 2/4. 26 November 1997. 

Ebert gives the film a mixed-to-negative verdict. He finds little to praise beyond Robin Williams's energetic performance, while the comedy itself falls short.

[Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/flubber-1997)

## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray

Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. 

The critic finds the film story-poor and stylistically tired, despite its impressive effects. He praises Robin Williams’s restrained performance and the effects artists’ work with the flubber.

[Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/flubber-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/flubber.md