Zoom : L'Académie des super-héros

The soundtrack having 5 smash mouth songs really fits the tone and overall quality of the movie.

My kids thought it was a great show. They ran around for the next week pretending to be really fast/invisible/strong.

I wasn't very impressed. As ever the effects were adequate, even the story was good. The character development was lacking and the acting was wooden.

The movie has a couple of guys who should be really funny; Tim Allen & Chevy Chase. They just weren't made use of in a funny way. Courtenay Cox was funnier and for her that's saying something.

The climax was anticlimactic but I think this links back to poor character development. We just didn't get to know the bad guy enough to really care about him.

I have seen a number of movies from Revolution Studios, and with almost all of them I have found them to be souless "product" - movies put together with ingredients that seemed to guarantee a big hit, but lacking soul. With movies like this (a box office flop, partly due to the fact it was not screened for critics, a sign audiences know usually means a stinker), it's no wonder that Revolution Studios closed its doors a year later.

What went wrong with this movie? The main reasons the movie is a stinker can be traced to the script. We have four youths on the team Allen is leading, and we learn next to nothing about them. They are pretty interchangeable. The rest of the characters are poorly written as well. The bad guy of the movie doesn't appear until the last 15 minutes of the movie, leaving no time to develop him.

This poor writing of the characters may explain the awful performances from the adult members of the cast. I agree with the Leonard Maltin movie guide that Allen seems to be phoning it in. He seems to have a contempt for what he is surrounded by, making his character very unlikable. As for Chevy Chase, he doesn't even TRY to be funny.

The movie tries to inject emotion by playing popular pop songs on the soundtrack, but it doesn't work. The sets and various indoor and outdoor locations are okay, I guess. But the CGI used is third-rate, giving the movie a cheap look when it occurs. Kids may not mind that. But will they like the rest of the movie? If I saw this as a kid, I probably wouldn't have liked it - the movie lacks spirited characters and a sense of wonder and excitement. There may be some (very) young kinds who might like this movie, but I don't think it will be a movie that they will want to watch again and again.

The people who rated this movie 1-star should get their heads out of their posteriors.

Too many movie-goers these days seem to only see movies as either being the best thing ever or the worst thing ever. The only way a movie should get 10 stars is if it would be difficult to improve upon and the only way a movie should get 1 star is if it was absolutely ineptly made on every level, and I assure you this movie doesn't come close to that. Even solely rating on personal taste and ignoring the technical filmmaking and how successfully the movie achieves the filmmakers' apparent intent, this movie could hardly be in the worst 10% of movies for anyone's taste.

This movie fails in many respects, but it has some redeeming moments and taken as a movie for small kids, it's not bad. The humor and acting both fall flat or miss the mark about as often as they're on target, but that is a sign of mediocrity, not atrocity.

Unfortunately at this point most of the IMDb users seem to think that if they enjoyed a movie they should give it a 10 and if it wasn't all they hoped for they should give it a 1. For instance the Lord of the Rings movies were entertaining, but have no business being rated higher than Citizen Kane or any of the countless classics relegated to lower ranks here. Similarly. Zoom has no business being rated lower than a piece of garbage like I Accuse My Parents which wasn't even watchable when it was skewered on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Remember folks most movies are mediocre. That means a low rating, not the bottom rating. Furthermore, just because a movie is exciting or satisfying doesn't make it a 10. For example, one can love the original Star Wars movies and still realize they have occasional flaws in acting, direction, pacing, or script.

Is Zoom a great movie? Absolutely not. Will some children, some parents, and even some adults without children enjoy it? Yes. Will it go down in history for being remarkable in any way? Probably not.

Remember how in the 70's you could tell the production value of a film by how often you saw the boom mike fall into view of the actors- well thanks to boom operator Darryl Purdy and the laziness of Peter "I apparently never watch the dailies" Hewitt, you can see the boom mike fall into view 3 separate times. That said allow me to point out that the cute little girl who acts as badly as her speech impediment can't save the film in the same way that the Brady Bunch would not have been popular with a the show devoted to Cindy Brady.

There was so much wasted possibility showing us the back ground of these characters the over use of montage and collage editing would not have been needed.

Also the film has three apparent villains in the film except none of them are bad and we never know why two of them are necessarily considered bad- but that's o.k. because the story was written by someone with ADD or perhaps short term memory loss as significant as the character in "Memento".The story has no continuity- Tim Allen hates the kids he plays with the kids he feels sorry for the kids no wait he doesn't understand why he's there to train the kids_ FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!! Nothing in this movie fit together- and in the end the super evil villain (whom we have waited 90 minutes to see) gets a scolding in the last 6 minutes of the movie and then it's over.

Didn't Peter Hewitt read the script before filming oh no wait this is the same guy that gave us "Bogus Journey"- you remember- the sequel that ended the Bill and Ted franchise. Not to mention the Garfield Movie.. a comic strip so revered for 30 years they made it into a Saturday morning cartoon but the movie that couldn't keep the audiences attention for 90 minutes (success based solely on a lack of other children films during its release and parents who grew up with Garfield the previous generation)...WHY DOES PETER HEWITT GET WORK, why?? Afterall,it is the directors responsibility for many things including having a working script and a vision before starting a project ( the exceptions being Andy Warhol who's audience base was too stoned to notice and Francis Ford Coppola with "Apocalypse Now" who had several million dollars to keep his dream afloat.

Peter Hewitt should be ashamed of himself for this crap.