The Legend of Zorro

As a more than passing fan of the Zorro movies that span the decades, I had been waiting since 1998 for a sequel to Martin Campbell's 'Mask of Zorro.' That movie took much (though not everything) of the best of the various Zorro films, serials, and series and then stole from other sources (such as Dumas 'Monte Cristo', etc) to concoct a sexy, swashbuckling action adventure that had great pacing and strengths, with high production values and actors. Mr. Campbell and those high standards at last return to the story begun, and we now follow our heroes and their son as California fights to join a struggling Union. Zorro's character is not quite so impulsive and cool as he once was, but simply comfortable and ultra-capable, while his wife Elena complains that the man behind the mask knows not who their son is growing up to be. None of these character 'upgrades' felt wrong to me; it was natural extensions of them from the first film, despite how adventurous Elena claims to still be (and for the most part isn't), but it does make the first act of this movie a bit tiresome after the initial (awesome) action sequence. This time, though, as the story and its many plot-points begin to move, the writers borrow heavily from Hitchcock to keep things interesting. It doesn't always work, as there's a lot going on but never QUITE coming perfectly, cohesively together, but ultimately it makes sense and spins a good yarn for the fighting to take over. Meanwhile the stunt coordinators take what has already been done in the best Zorro flicks and then go wild with it, giving us stunts and action of old-school-cool caliber, such as stage-coaches, leaps and horses jumping on to explosive-laden locomotives. Unfortunately there is not quite enough action, and while I do like the over-all story - with its subtle bits of murk and dirty grays underneath the battle of white and black hats - it doesn't actually pace perfectly, giving us bickering Vega family exploits and Zorro failures for a rather large portion of the picture. The sword fights are fewer and more far-between than I would have liked, sometimes degrading to fisticuffs instead of proper dicing, but then the explosions almost make up for it all. The humor is a bit silly, provided mostly by the horse(!!) and the sometimes-annoying kid, but the audience ate it up. The villains are good, if never entirely fleshed out, and the themes are handled well. It's the lag caused by the idea (which I never understood) that 'once a couple gets together they're not interesting anymore' that slows things. Regardless of my small issues, the movie DOES deliver as a Zorro film, (with a good ending, for certain) and while it doesn't completely live up to its predecessor, it is a worthy sequel - just not entirely the direction I would have gone.

...it's quite alright for a one-time watch. I enjoyed watching Catherine and Antonio together again as Zorro and Elena but their chemistry was less electric than in the prequel. The film itself is a little slow-paced with loads of over-the-top stunts. Then there's also the unnecessary 'save America' bit which just seems to be a necessary formula for all Hollywood superhero films. Some well shot scenes include the dance scene at the party (no, it's not the flamenco) that has a touch of humour. Cinematography is quite good and the locations are beautiful. In a way it does stay true to the first movie as this time we see both Elena and their son Jaoquin fight by Zorro but it lacks the heart, the natural humour, the energy and passion of the wonderful prequel. Direction isn't completely up to the mark as some scenes seem to have been cluelessly shot. But on a more positive note, 'The Legend of Zorro' was entertaining to an extent, just don't expect anything fantastic that you'd take away with you long after the film's concluded.

If you don't like Saturday morning cartoons, children's adventure movies, and silly fun, then don't bother seeing this film. Otherwise, you'll have a good time.

The filmmakers take major liberties with history, human behavior, and the laws of physics, but it really doesn't matter. They're not going for realism. They wanted to make a flamboyant PG-rated kids' movie and succeeded. The characters all behave pretty much the way they do in kids' movies, and the cast is obviously having far too much fun.

Adults expecting a grown-up swashbuckler will be disappointed, but the adventurous kid in me really enjoyed it.

Considering that the first one was absolutely terrific in delivering top notch action and delivering a solid story, this sequel is surprisingly average. The film has the feel and good ideas of the first, but the film mostly feels strained and forced. The film is still an entertaining film but its also disappointing in the fact that the first one was so good. I thought The Legend Of Zorro delivered average action and an average plot, I felt that there was nothing special about the film. The film feels like they're trying to outdo the first one which of course was great. This sequel is at times silly and really doesn't live up to the original. Overall the film is bordeline good fun, it's nothing truly excellent or good. The film is average. I found the acting to be quite sloppy too. The kid annoyed me and he was probably written into the script to give the film a "needed" edge that almost every sequel needs, a kid that gets himself into a shitload of trouble for the sake of putting the main characters at risk. This is too bad, because The Legend Of Zorro could have been something truly terrific, but the end results is that of a strained sequel that tries to overdue it's predecessor. The Legend Of Zorro will disappoint fans of the first, and some will think that this is an average or mediocre film with a watered down plot. Borderline decent, but not good or great at all. I was disappointed.

In general I liked the movie, but I would have liked it if they had changed the time period to a later date. But first, let me quickly put down the pros and cons.

Pros

chemistry b/w Alejandro and Elena (Banderas/Zeta-Jones); action sequences; further development of Elena's character; continuity with the first film; the film's unmasking scene

Cons

anachronisms or historical inaccuracies; plausibility of the plot

Now I mentioned that the filmmakers should have moved the film's setting from 1850 to 1861. The current film makes it clear that the Civil War is years away, but I would set this film at the start of the Civil War--1861--for the following reasons.

1) Doing so ages Alejandro/Zorro more and makes the issue of him retiring that much more pertinent because of his age. Here Alejandro is still somewhat middle-aged, and moving the story 21 years ahead makes his age a much more relevant issue. I understand that the filmmakers didn't want to feature Joaquin taking over as Zorro at the end of LOZ because they wanted Banderas and Zeta-Jones to come back for a third film. I still think that both of them could still come back for the third film--one where Alejandro is forced to come out of retirement and aid his son Joaquin (the new Zorro).

2) This makes the current plot more plausible. As it stands, Count Armand and the society "Orbis Unum" intend to make what will be called nitroglycerin for the South, who will eventually use it. Why not have the society make and try to deliver the explosive for the South who are ALREADY at war with the North? Why do something for a FUTURE conflict?

3) The 1861 setting brings another event into play, which could have been the film's plot instead. Count Armand is French. In the early 1860s France, along with the Roman Catholic clergy, backed the ascension of Archduke Maximilian of Austria to the title of Emperor of Mexico. Now they could have taken part of the plot--the manufacture of the explosive--and have that be part of France's oppression of the Mexican people, with France having future plans to take California (a rehash of the first film's plot). France's involvement in Mexico is true historical fact, and they could have instead made a plot involving this.

4) The time change would eliminate the historical inaccuracies question that plagues LOZ. Did the Pinkertons exist in 1850? Why is Abraham Lincoln, here a lawyer sent to be a witness to the statehood ceremony, in this movie? Setting the film in 1861 eliminates these questions. The statehood part would be gone, but any presence of Lincoln now makes more sense, seeing as he was President at this time, and I'm sure the Pinkertons existed by this point. Things would "fit" better.

So, I enjoyed the film, but I feel that if they had changed the setting to 1861, they could have improved the film. Now, I DO see how this film is somewhat in the "Wild Wild West" vein--using certain methods rather ahead of their time.

However, I feel that changing the date to 1861 would have made things work better, or could have given them another good idea for the film's plot.