La légende de Zorro

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.

It's the year 1850, and California is about to join the Union. Zorro (Antonio Banderas) has defended the people for 10 years. His wife Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) wants to take some time to travel with their son. Zorro wants to stay to work for the people. She gets a divorce from him. Or is there more to it? Months later, Zorro finds his wife with wealthy nobleman Armand (Rufus Sewell) who owns a vineyard. They were old friends and got reacquainted. Only he's not what he seems.

It's a tough way to start the LOVE story of Elena and Zorro with their divorce. It takes the air right out of the movie. It was tough to see them fighting at all. Of course there is no Anthony Hopkins in this one. That makes the couple's chemistry all the more important, and their split the more shattering.

The action is swashbuckling as before. But everything is just a little more somber. The humor isn't there any more. It's all rather depressing.

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.

I liked the film.

You aren't going to get a more aesthetic movie than this: the actors (wow, Antonio and Catherine Zeta both in the same movie -- Anjelina & Brad, eat your hearts out -- no contest!), the costumes, the lighting, the villa and townscapes, and the sheer beauty of the location, day and night.

Antonio looks a little more "mature" than I've seen him in awhile, but he's no less smoldering and charming on the screen. He's a natural for playing Zorro. The athleticism of Zorro is pretty impressive too. Lots of leaps, flips, and creative uses of his whip.

Catherine-Zeta is breathtakingly beautiful, as always. Those eyes of hers... It's enjoyable to see her in a maternal role. I love her costumes! It's good to see her multi-tasking.

Their son, Joaquim, is outstanding. Child stars usually make me gag, but this kid has genuine talent, and the person(s) filming and editing have admirably captured it.

The main bad guy (the one with the mansion) is intriguing as well. Not sure who he is but I hope to see more of him.

The other villain is, plain and simple, unidimensional, which is typical of adventure type movies. No surprises there. The way he meets his end is creative.

The Horse. Wow.

The political framework of the plot worked well for the movie.

If you're looking for a movie that entertains while being pleasing to the eye, check it out.

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.