"Zoom: Academy for Superheroes" (2006)

Okay, I've pretty much conceded that they just don't make movies with my sense of humor (sigh).  That being said, I know comedies are tough!  And awards get-ups should acknowledge the differences more.  Think about it.  When action movie people want action, or want more action, they add more action--many times dictated by the kind of genre being written.  Same goes for mysteries and dramas.  But for comedy, you have so many different kinds of humor that it takes real talent to add all of them in there.  While this movie pretty much doesn't have my kind of humor, it does a nice job of balancing a number of other kinds.

First off, they have the politically correct number of super heroes--two boys, two girls, two teenagers, two kids--totaling a team of four non-adults.  And as such, they have the token romance--okay double romance.  They have what I call the "stupid humor" scenes that others so love--and that I'm guessing must appeal to kids more.  After all, if you're going to have little kids, then you've got to have the humor that tends to appeal to them--or at least must seem to appeal to kids, because they sure build a lot of kids' movies and kids' TV shows with that style of humor.

So, this movie has a nice balance of characters, of humor, of story parts for the super hero genre, is pretty family-friendly, and has an overall story line geared for family watching.  It does fit into superhero movies on the perimeter--it wasn't the line of story I was hoping for--but it was interesting enough that I watched all the way through and quite enjoyed about 96% of it--which is a nice high percentage for me.

As for any "accusations" along the line of "What's wrong with the movie?"

First, nothing.  I've mentioned the humor.  The humor's fine.  I personally don't go for the "stupid humor" scenes (most of the 4% I took off), but it wasn't overbearing and I know a number of folks like it.  So, the humor is fine.  I won't say no complaints (I have high standards for personal tastes), but nothing worth going on and on about.

Second, if I can't find the movies I want to see, then I really should work on honing the skill to write the scripts for such.  I seem to remember reading something about Toni Morrison saying that's part of how or why she started writing novels--she was tired of not reading what she wanted to read.  So, really I should do the same thing.  If I'm tired of not watching what I want to watch, maybe I should work on writing it. (Publishing it or producing it is obviously a whole other matter.)  

Third, if this movie were to hit the "100% and I totally loved it!" mark, then the movie would maybe be less light in places which then would feel like missing the mark for some folks' definition of a "good" family movie.  And I don't want it to miss the mark for them.  I'm just spending a lot of time searching for movies to hit my mark.  (Okay, I'm spoiled by great literature and I know what intrigues me about stories.  What of it?)

I often have grudges about how a movie starts and ends, but this was at least well-rounded (for lack of a better term).  I can live with that.

Another sign this was a decent movie that I enjoyed?  I want to know if there will be a sequel--or TV show spin off.

The "Cindy"/"Princess" character was great!  And I liked what the story line spun for "Dylan"/"Houdini".

"Fantomas III: The Murderous Corpse" (1913)--revisited

Part of the definition of "classic" should be the ability to enjoy it just as much--if not more--on subsequent viewings.  I enjoyed this more the 2nd time now that I'm more familiar with the characters--having now watched Fantomas I & II.  And I still like the use of bassoons and feel that they have been underused in cinema soundtracks.  The first time I was greatly confused on who was who, especially since Juve and Fantomas used different disguises, but having gotten used to who was who and this concept from the first time I watched III, then I, & II, I could make a lot more sense of it now.  And even with know what was going to happen this time, I still enjoyed the movie.  Or concert with pictures.

"Fantomas II: Juve vs. Fantomas" (1913)

I don't have any way of knowing how close to the original the sound track is--or even if the original had any live sound accompaniment--but for the sound track that was included with this version, I have this to say:  Soundtracks should use bassoons more like this one did.  Maybe we'd have a few more bassoon players if we did.  I've also decided that silent films are best watched in the morning when you first wake up.

Wondering why silent films have such a strong association to "simple stories", at least for me?  There's nothing "simple" about it.  It's just as good as any current day story, if not better then at least some.  Is it the sound of dialogue that makes stories seem more complex?  And if it is, why don't we talk about it more?  Or maybe it's the idea that it's "simpler" to just listen to a movie than to watch and read one.  And in the process of thinking about what's "simpler" for ourselves, we mix the two up and think that movies are what's simple and that we're getting a more complex experience by watching something we can also hear.

Surprises in this film:  the fake arms--I didn't see that coming, and I didn't understand what cause the final explosion--I know that we were shown, but I didn't understand it.  And who the "silent killer" was.

And Lady Belmont--does she love the guy out of fear?  Or is she so surprised to see him that she doesn't know what to think?  Or is it realizing that she loves a guy that's capable of murder and she's just now figuring this out?