Flubber/Angels in the Endzone

Next up in “Disney Live-Action Month,” we have come to the 1997 comedy remake, “Flubber.” John R.McEwen started his review out by saying, “Hey, moms and dads, remember all those fun toy substances you (or your kids) used to play with? Silly Putty, Play-Doh, Slime...? Well, get ready with the sponge: this Christmas, it's flubber you'll be cleaning out of the carpet. Disney's remake of its own classic The Absent-Minded Professor (1961) is sure to start a craze for the stuff, and we should see it popping up in stores any second now.”

The late Robin Williams plays Phillip Brainard, the nice scientist who has already missed two plans at his own wedding. At the beginning of the film, his fiancée, Sara, played by Marcia Gay Harden, warns him that their upcoming planned wedding will be his last chance. Also around this time, we meet Wilson Croft, played by Christopher McDonald, Phillip’s rival not only for scientific plans, but also for Sara. Wilson does nothing to hide his plans to steal Sara, and even admits to have gotten rich over so many Phillip’s inventions. He’s comfortable admitting this because he knows that Phillip will forget the conversation immediately after it’s over. McEwen said, “After this brief period of exposition, the balance of the film is devoted to Phillip's pursuit of his elusive new substance and Wilson's pursuit of the ambivalent Sara.”

McEwen continued, “The plot is really little more than a '90s re-hashing of the 1961 Fred MacMurray film, including the rivalry between the two local schools, the underdog basketball team being aided by the addition of flubber to their sneaker soles, and the flubberized flying car. Considering this along with the recent remakes of 101 Dalmations and That Darn Cat, Disney is obviously issuing an environmentalist hint: don't produce, recycle.” Notable updates include a robot character called Weebo, a flying invention voiced by Jodi Benson, and also that in this version, the flubber looks like it has a mind of its own. There is a famous dance number with the green transparent material and a house full of robotic appliances, but no humans.

As you would think, there is not a large number of social commentary or hurting moral issues anywhere in this film. Almost all that characters are a stereotype of the type found in most Disney movies, and there are a lot of repeating jokes and slapstick comedy. McEwen ended his review by saying, “But it is a lot of fun, and a great way to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon, as I found out this weekend with my 6-year old son. He absolutely loved the film, and I have no doubt that flubber will be on his Christmas list this year (and Flubber will be next year).”

Next up we have a movie that I remember airing on TV because that’s what it was released on, instead of in theaters, “Angels in the Endzone,” released in 1997. Westfield’s High School’s football team is declining. The Angels haven’t won a game in so long, and this season looks like there won’t be a chance. Jesse Harper, played by Matthew Lawrence, looks like the MVP for Westfield as the team’s new tailback. However, after his father, played by Jack Coleman, dies in an accident in a rainstorm, Jesse loses the will to play. He didn’t really quit the team, he just stopped playing.

Jesse’s younger brother, Kevin, played by David Gallagher (who you might remember from the horrible "7th Heaven" show), prays one night for some miracle, and the actual angels respond! They’re leader is Al, reprised by Christopher Lloyd, the only returning character from the first movie. As in “Angels in the Outfield,” the angels give much-needed help for the team of sinking players.

Suddenly, Westfield starts to win again, and Kevin becomes a lucky charm for Coach Buck, played by Paul Dooley, and team, not unlike Roger Bomman, from the first film. However, Jesse starts to become friends with a bad crowd and start some bad habits. Will he come back to the team? Will the Angels win the season? That’s for you to find out.

DVD Dizzy said in their review, “I consider Angels in the Outfield one of Disney's best films from the '90s. It's a bit predictable, and not exactly subtle, but far more importantly, it's funny and really has its heart in the right place. This made-for-TV sequel debuted in the fall of 1997, the season that marked the return of "The Wonderful World of Disney." I'm less enthusiastic about it, as it feels more of a retread and not nearly as well-performed.”

This sequel sticks closely to what the first movie had started. The radio announcer returns, however this time, he’s more eccentric than obnoxious and mocking. DVD Dizzy noted, “There's even a scene when a rousing song accompanies wacky fieldplay when the football goes wild (at the hands of the angels), which almost exactly calls to mind the classic "Hippy Hippy Shakes" sequence from the original.”

Sadly, the film doesn’t hold a candle to either “Angels in the Outfield’s” comedic or dramatic success. It may have come closer to the latter, as it tolerably pulls off the serious thematic material. Comedically, it’s really weak. Christopher Lloyd, has a few good lines, but the loser team doesn’t come across as “mildly amusing.” DVDDizzy said, “Whereas the original's team of oddball characters was a bit reminiscent of the likable Major League, this group has a chemistry that feels more like Revenge of the Nerds II.”

DVD Dizzy also noted, “There's this one kid who wants to keep his jersey clean and another who wears glasses. Then, there's a foreign kid who, expecting European football, becomes the team's kicker. He's foreign because he's not the best with English, and he wears his jock strap on the outside of his pants, which are sometimes put on backwards altogether.”

Certain things don’t make sense. Why do the loser kids keep betting against their high school even after they start winning flawlessly? Why does this high school football team have the play-by-play of their games told on the radio, and with a profession? Why does the “Angels” disappear from the team’s uniform before the final game? Why does it immediately change from afternoon to night in seconds before the final play? You might not care, but they really come across as flaws in logic to what could have been a superior sequel.

Even though the sequel doesn’t give its story as nicely as the first one did, it does stay harmlessly entertaining. Paul Dooley isn’t as great as Danny Glover, but he constantly does a nice performance as the coach. DVD Dizzy said, “Matthew Lawrence's performance also helps to keep the film from subpar territory of schlock.”

“Angels in the Endzone” can’t hold a candle to the first film, but it is not completely devoid of charms. DVD Dizzy said, “Disney has given the film a perfectly fine DVD release, which should please fans of this sequel. Endzone is not one of the best Wonderful World of Disney originals, but it certainly is better than many television movies. If you're on the fence, you might wish to wait for a price drop. (Since this review was first published, that has already happened.)” If you enjoyed this movie, you’ll love “Angels in the Outfield,” the theatrical first film, which is more worth watching if you didn’t already see it.

I’m not looking forward to tomorrow, but we’ll be talking about two completely horrible movies in “Disney Live Action Month.”