Near the end of my film, my brother and I joked about how this film was a "good bad action movie." We consider "bad actions movies" as almost a sub-genre inside of action. Oh yes, they can be quite "fun", with pretty explosions and battles to boot, but they also contain a myriad of clichés.
The Legend of Zorro contains several ingredients that qualify it as a bad action movie, or even just an action movie in general;
A hero who's really awesome in hand-to-hand, gymnastics, and a variety of stunts (this time including with a whip) A sexy, butt-kicking heroine
The aforementioned pair's small son, who has an "attitude problem" and seems to think he's a hero (but he is, sort of) A guy who is utterly vile and cruel, simply for the sake of being utterly vile and cruel A classy, groomed main villain with an evil stare A plot of said main villain to destroy the U.S., kill the hero's son, AND steal the hero's wife at the same time A little plot twist thrown in to make us think the story actually is about more than that
So what are my opinions concerning each of these elements? The hero and heroine are fine. Their son? He was a total brat, but I liked him, and the kid playing the role could really act. I was even more impressed when I discovered he hadn't even been able to speak English when he was chosen to play in this movie!
As for the vile and cruel dude...yeah he was a little over the top. You know, how he can't seem to take a shower, grins to show his even filthier teeth, is racist, bears a cross-shaped scar and quotes scripture whilst talking about going about "The Lord's work?" The guy seems to love harassing Mexican farmers for no apparent reason, but hey, what the heck? We just needed somebody to hate, and Harrigan's there to satisfy our appetite to the fullest. I personally wasn't satisfied so much that I didn't stop to wonder why on earth the classy bad guy would have such a one in his employ.
The groomed antagonist with the malevolent stare played his role to near-perfection. His ploy to destroy the U.S. didn't really make sense to me, but then, he was French and all that so I guess maybe that was the script-writer's excuse?
Anyway, moving on. There's one thing about this film that you keep on wondering about even after it's over.
How the heck did Zorro get there?
Yeah, we know that a typical superhero cliché is that when there's trouble, somehow the superhero appears there. On closer examination of better and more mature films, we can note that the superhero didn't just "appear" there but rather followed a series of clues that led him to arrive to the scene of the crime just in the nick of time.
In this, however, you get the impression that either the script writer was just extremely lazy or Zorro's telepathic. The fact remains, that Zorro is NOT telepathic and therefore his timely interventions in the villain's evil plans are improbable.
Another improbable thing, is an antagonist, who by all accounts despite the whole hiring Harrigan thing seems pretty darned intelligent, deciding not to kill the protagonist when he has the chance. Instead, he leaves it to an unreliable henchman, without even staying behind to make sure the guy gets the job done. Come on, this is Zorro. What kind of idiot would do that? Additionally, even though Harrigan's unreliable and pretty much a psycho, he does something that's incredibly stupid even for him, which, of course result's in Zorro's easy escape.
Now here's the part I feel really, really proud of myself for noticing. Do you know how the bad guy invents nitroglycerin? Well it turns out, that as I suspected, nitroglycerin was invented 13 years AFTER California became a state. Oh, that's not that bad of a goof, but goofs can be quite culminating.
So what is my overall opinion of this film? I actually enjoyed the whole viewing experience quite a bit, and would even be willing to watch it again. Zorro and Elena's comedic arguments and unmistakable attraction were more than entertaining. However, I missed Anthony Hopkins, I missed having a good plot, I couldn't convince myself that that whip would've actually wrapped around anything and supported someone's weight, and if I'd had to pay for this movie, I would've felt cheated.
The Legend of Zorro contains several ingredients that qualify it as a bad action movie, or even just an action movie in general;
A hero who's really awesome in hand-to-hand, gymnastics, and a variety of stunts (this time including with a whip) A sexy, butt-kicking heroine
The aforementioned pair's small son, who has an "attitude problem" and seems to think he's a hero (but he is, sort of) A guy who is utterly vile and cruel, simply for the sake of being utterly vile and cruel A classy, groomed main villain with an evil stare A plot of said main villain to destroy the U.S., kill the hero's son, AND steal the hero's wife at the same time A little plot twist thrown in to make us think the story actually is about more than that
So what are my opinions concerning each of these elements? The hero and heroine are fine. Their son? He was a total brat, but I liked him, and the kid playing the role could really act. I was even more impressed when I discovered he hadn't even been able to speak English when he was chosen to play in this movie!
As for the vile and cruel dude...yeah he was a little over the top. You know, how he can't seem to take a shower, grins to show his even filthier teeth, is racist, bears a cross-shaped scar and quotes scripture whilst talking about going about "The Lord's work?" The guy seems to love harassing Mexican farmers for no apparent reason, but hey, what the heck? We just needed somebody to hate, and Harrigan's there to satisfy our appetite to the fullest. I personally wasn't satisfied so much that I didn't stop to wonder why on earth the classy bad guy would have such a one in his employ.
The groomed antagonist with the malevolent stare played his role to near-perfection. His ploy to destroy the U.S. didn't really make sense to me, but then, he was French and all that so I guess maybe that was the script-writer's excuse?
Anyway, moving on. There's one thing about this film that you keep on wondering about even after it's over.
How the heck did Zorro get there?
Yeah, we know that a typical superhero cliché is that when there's trouble, somehow the superhero appears there. On closer examination of better and more mature films, we can note that the superhero didn't just "appear" there but rather followed a series of clues that led him to arrive to the scene of the crime just in the nick of time.
In this, however, you get the impression that either the script writer was just extremely lazy or Zorro's telepathic. The fact remains, that Zorro is NOT telepathic and therefore his timely interventions in the villain's evil plans are improbable.
Another improbable thing, is an antagonist, who by all accounts despite the whole hiring Harrigan thing seems pretty darned intelligent, deciding not to kill the protagonist when he has the chance. Instead, he leaves it to an unreliable henchman, without even staying behind to make sure the guy gets the job done. Come on, this is Zorro. What kind of idiot would do that? Additionally, even though Harrigan's unreliable and pretty much a psycho, he does something that's incredibly stupid even for him, which, of course result's in Zorro's easy escape.
Now here's the part I feel really, really proud of myself for noticing. Do you know how the bad guy invents nitroglycerin? Well it turns out, that as I suspected, nitroglycerin was invented 13 years AFTER California became a state. Oh, that's not that bad of a goof, but goofs can be quite culminating.
So what is my overall opinion of this film? I actually enjoyed the whole viewing experience quite a bit, and would even be willing to watch it again. Zorro and Elena's comedic arguments and unmistakable attraction were more than entertaining. However, I missed Anthony Hopkins, I missed having a good plot, I couldn't convince myself that that whip would've actually wrapped around anything and supported someone's weight, and if I'd had to pay for this movie, I would've felt cheated.