In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

" 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 .
does n'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 do n'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 ?
did n't think so .
it does n'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 , could n't they have done something else with edie mcclurg ?
N