IMDb > Zoom (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Zoom More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 12:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 113 reviews in total 

53 out of 72 people found the following review useful:

Classic slapstick Allen and Chase

Author: DocVW from Canada
15 February 2007

I actually watched this movie before I read any of the reviews or comments on this site which is rare for me; I tend to value the reviews and rankings of the other members. This is the first time I am left scratching my head wondering what exact movie did you people watch to give it such low reviews??!! This movie is what it is and a very good job of it. It is a movie that makes fun of super hero movies. Take a bitter misfit ex-superhero who can't be any less interested in training new recruits and make it funny. Zoom has his reasons to be bitter and they are CLEARLY explained, if people don't get the plot, they weren't really paying attention. The acting in this movie is very good by a well collected cast. Allen and Chase deliver slapstick one liners throughout the whole movie that are truly reminiscent of their comedic classic styles. If the one liner isn't enough to make you laugh, add the highly adorable factor from Ryan Newman as Cindy Collins is tops. The rest of the cast works very well together and even though there is a lot of predictability in the movie, it is still very funny and worth the watch. This is not a literary classic brought to life, so don't expect it to be. The negative comments about Allen are unjust, as his character wasn't' that far off from his style in the Santa Clause movies. This movie was enjoyable and I laughed out loud many times and I don't do that often with movies because they just aren't as funny in the same style. If you want to just relax and laugh at a silly movie, the Zoom on over to your video store and pick this one up.

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 62 people found the following review useful:

Oh, for a kid's movie, you need to give it a break

Author: Kristine ( from Chicago, Illinois
27 February 2007

I rented this movie for my cousin, it was his pick and we watched it as soon as we got home, he loved it! I seriously was expecting this big travesty of a film with the way the users are talking about it on IMDb, but I have to honestly say that it wasn't THAT bad, come on, it's a kid's movie, what did you expect? Citizen Kane? For the kids it had a fun plot and cool visuals, yeah, the story was a little lame, but as adults we should know that this movie was not meant for us, so I am going to judge it on being a children's movie.

These kids all have super powers, but don't know how to use them effectively, so the program of Zoom is going to help them become super heroes with a man who was a former celebrity type of hero who is now a has-been. They enjoy being kids with each other and learn how to use their powers in the right ways and must destroy Conor, another former super hero who went bad. Together they all must learn to a team and also a family.

Like I said, for a kid's movie, it's cute and it really wasn't a BAD movie, I've seen worse, believe me! So don't use most of these comments as your judgment factor, see how the kids react and really judge for yourself, it's a fun little flick that I wouldn't watch again, but I think it will be a fun small classic somewhere down the road for the children.


Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

My kids loved it, I wasn't very impressed

Author: lanceandlaura from Vernon, B.C., Canada
21 August 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Someone lost the promise

Author: Aaron from United States
16 August 2006

First off, a tiny bit about me. 1) I took my daughters (13 & 10) to this movie. 2) I tend to enjoy children's movies and I love SciFi. 3) My wife & I mostly agreed about the quality of this movie. 4) I've never rated a movie before.

Although I agree with many points from the first posting, I do think this movie *had* promise. It seems to me that if all characters were developed properly, that the screenplay had been more carefully thought out, that the technical filming of the show had gone better (boom mic!), that there was cohesiveness to the whole story, and that the actual plot had been more fully developed that this movie could have been spectacular. I was even willing to accept the story line until the kids were mysteriously found dutifully waiting in their room when they were supposed to be hiding. After that, it went downhill quickly for me.

I would have liked to see more exemplary development of the kids' powers -- the kind of foreshadowing that is later revealed in how they save the day (ie. A scene of Summer controlling the paint balls would have helped me believe better her focused power use in the end). Why spend all that time watching Cindy throw ton-weights at a target? How did Dylan's ability with the apple help in the end? What did they do with Tucker to help him learn to control his bloating? How is "mind sight" related to invisibility? Don't even get me started on Ms. Cox character (which I thought she played well).

The pacing and development of the two predictable romances was fair, but why not let Summer have a little tirade with Dylan for knowing he had "seen" her dancing? Followed up with Dylan's peace offering of the necklace pendant -- drama & release -- make the relationship grow on us.

The human stories here have to do with the kids as outcasts in life. Let's develop that more than the two short bits about the girls and Jack finally relating to Dylan. Zoom needed to grow with each kid to show his own growth and bring out his determination to succeed.

Then again, succeed at what? I think Tim Allen does a great job with the "unknown" aspect of the plot. He has no motivation, he gives none. But without a believable reason to drive the plot of the kids' training, we get what we saw. Also, there's nothing socially "dangerous" about the threat of Concussion - it seems a personal vendetta or overblown fear that Larraby is concerned about -- hardly enough to make me feel for him or his cause, and, unfortunately, the movie.

Finally, let's chew on continuity and technical prowess. I was thinking I saw the boom 5 times (but let's not quibble). Aren't people paid to notice these things (the director, even) during production? Let's keep track of where the characters are and give them a reason to go/be somewhere else. Let's give the characters more reason, heck even a strategy, to want to make and close a vortex. Let's see Rip Torn say the line that we watch him ventriloquize {sic}.

Would I watch it again? Maybe just to watch Zoom stumble again, see Houdini throw another punch, or see Summer be radiant -- OK, Cindy's got the tough-cute factor that can be enjoyable in moderation (pull up a chair, whydontya).

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

Saving the world has never been such a chore

Author: badidosh from Philippines
27 September 2006

"Zoom" is a kids' superhero flick based on the novel "Zoom's Academy" written by Jason Lethcoe. In it, Tim Allen stars as a has-been superhero who's tasked to train four young superheroes to battle a nemesis. With that, you pretty much know what to expect. Unfortunately, that's all. While the film has all what comprises a prototype of this milked-dry genre, the experience is overtly familiar and dull.

Jack Shephard (Allen... nope, not Matthew Fox) was Captain Zoom, a superhero who can travel at superhuman speeds, and one of the members of the military-sponsored superhero group "Team Zenith." But he has since lost his powers after a military experiment has gone awry that also has his teammates killed. 30 years later Jack is brought back to train four youngsters with superpowers when a new malevolent threat from the past emerges.

First of all, the script of Adam Rifkin and David Berenbaum doesn't attain new heights with their blunt dealing of a theme that's been done more excellently with "The Incredibles" and "Sky High." And director Peter Hewitt ("Garfield"), who clearly isn't exactly a master storyteller himself, has little to work from with such a dull and hollow material. All of the characters are perfunctory parts rather than humans portraying genuine conflicts.

Also, for a film that's called "Zoom," the film drags: it lacks a sufficient amount of action. We're supposed to see the kids train, but all we're mostly shown are unfunny attempts at slapstick humor that the filmmakers assume would elicit laughters from the little tots among the audience (uhm, Courteney Cox tripping down and Chevy Chase getting slime on his face, anyone?). What constitutes for training involve at the most paint balls and a drive-thru chaos at a Wendy's restaurant. Yes, there's the climactic fight sequence at the end but it's too quick, unexciting, and not enough by a mile for a film that has terribly dragged along.

Ultimately, what transpires is a terribly unfunny movie that wears out its welcome faster than its main character runs.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

Peter Hewitt is an awful and lazy director!!!!

Author: lane jarsonbeck (NTESLAFAN05@YAHOO.COM) from Tampa, Florida
16 August 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

84 out of 158 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie of 2006!

Author: Candice Boyle (SalamanderGirl) from United States
15 August 2006

Zoom will not only be remembered with such dogs as Ishtar, Howard the Duck and Gigli, but also as one of the most blatantly thieving movies of all time. The only way to stay awake while watching Zoom is to count how many scenes, characters and story ideas are stolen from other movies. From X-Men and Sky High to Spy Kids and Fantastic 4, on and on, this movie steals from everyone. And none of it works! The most interesting anomaly is that finally there's a movie with Chevy Chase where the material is worse than he is. (Sorry Chevy, but six or seven movies not withstanding, your career consists of mostly dogs.) But the problem with Zoom is not the actors, it's the script. At least Howard the Duck and Ishtar, garbage that they were, were fairly original. Zoom is recycled, regurgitated crap from uninspired filmmakers, and it's just another nail in the coffin that was once Hollywood.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

IMDb voters get it wrong on this one

Author: Floyd Maxwell ( from United States
3 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a solid KID movie. Our family of five (kids aged 9 to 13) watched the whole thing, no one left or wanted to. My wife kept saying how it was a good movie. I liked it and watched -- much more than I can say for Barnyard.

This movie featured Smash Mouth and they did a lot of songs, some their own and some covers. This made the music much better than average.

Tim Allen is a very watchable likable guy and here he is no exception.

The CGI was above average, making the movie an X-Men for kids. It is also a bit like Spy Kids, only better in my eyes.

Courtney Cox was very game, the kids (and The Kid) were just fine but personally, I thought Rip Torn's take on his part was goofy -- but I don't think this will hurt his rating by those aged 12 or under.

Frankly I am totally mystified by this film's rating (2.2 as of this writing). All I can think of is Hollywood is afraid on someone in this movie becoming a threat to the elite and wants to sink them (like they did with Costener in Waterworld).

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 99 people found the following review useful:


Author: Andrew from Canada
24 August 2006

It was nothing short of painful.

I took an 11 year old to see this movie, and he was actually sore at me for suggesting the movie.

The way I see it Peter Hewitt owes me $20 for the movie tickets and 3 hours of my life back (1.5 hr for the movie, 1/2 hr for the drive, and 1 hr for all the time I spent bitching about how awful it really was)!

From the boom mic in the shots, to the five minute fight scene at the end, to the terrible acting by the team as a whole, to the total lack of understanding behind the conflict with Chevy Chase and Rip Torn and the team, to Tim Allen's lack of understood emotion, to Courtney Cox's most painful character to date - the movie was just plain awful.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:


Author: fortey from Ontario
29 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The one thing that stuck with me long after watching this movie was the realization that my first impression of Chevy Chase was wrong. When he first appears on screen I was positive he was covered in make up. But as time wore on it became clear that's actually what his head looks like these days. Good Lord...

The current state of Chevy Chase's head is actually the most interesting aspect of this movie. The rest of the movie is celluloid child abuse and by that I mean you really need to rethink your parenting skills if you willingly subject your kids to this. It indicates you hate them and punish them severely or you have a desire to warp their minds with absolute crap.

Children's movies have a lot of apologists out there. People who will toss out "it's a kid's movie, what were you expecting?" or some equally weak line that makes it seem like stories should treat kids like complete idiots and be poorly structure from the beginning, because what do kids know? They're probably stupid enough to buy it.

Maybe I was an overly sarcastic child, but I know I would have ripped this movie a new one back in the day, too. It's garbage heaped on garbage.

Why does Courtney Cox have pratfalls? Just because Laurel and Hardy haven't done a lot of work lately, there's no need for Courtney Cox to steal their shtick. Nor is there need for her to deliver some of the worst lines in filmed history, but whatever. The writer of this film is a demon that needs to be exorcised by a force far greater than me.

What abominably forgetful and unobservant, near-sighted beast edited this thing? Never have I seen such heinous editing in all my life. Montage after montage is tossed at you and in no way do the events portrayed therein reflect the story that exists when the montage stops. It makes no sense at all. You have Tim Allen, just as talentless and unfunny as ever, being crabby and pathetic as the would-be teacher to these kids, then a montage starts and everyone looks like they're having the time of their life, then the montage ends and someone whines about how Tim Allen still isn't doing his job and the kids need him and blah blah. All until the next montage starts when everything seems happy again.

But wait, there's more. Smash Mouth? Are you joking? Who thought, in 2006, that a band no one has cared about in 5 years would be good for a soundtrack? A band that has to accompany every single one of the numerous, pointless montages. And to keep things consistent, all the rest of the songs in the movie are also outdated. But...why? Did they get a deal on a NOW CD or something? Why did they cast a kid who isn't fat as a fat kid and then stuff a pillow down his shirt? Why can I see the boom mic? Didn't anyone at all care about how this movie looked? Why do casting directors always look to Tim Allen when they have a horribly unfunny children's movie to make? I get that he's not funny so it stays in the theme but I can't help but think maybe they didn't intentionally set out to make the movie unfunny.

When Rip Torn says "I speak Greek not Geek" I could almost see all the 4 year olds around the world rolling their eyes as one.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the entire end of this movie was improv. It's the only explanation I can think of for why it's so terrible. The entire awful, nonsensical movie builds up to this ending with this super villain whose powers are inexplicably nullified by Tim Allen in an absolutely idiotic body stocking and helmet running around him really fast. Then everything is cool again.

In a nutshell, this is a perfect movie if you want to punish your children for some nameless crime, or if you're just an unloving kind of person. For any other reason, I can't imagine anyone needs to watch this. Ever.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 12:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history