Die Legende des Zorro

We saw "The Legend of Zorro" at our local theater tonight, long-anticipating a sequel to a wonderful film featuring Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. While hoping it would follow suit with the first film, we were committed to going in with open minds.

Simply, the film does not match the robustness, passion or provocative nature of the first film. That does NOT mean it is a bad film - just different.

Strengths of the movie include admirable performing by the Alejandro and Elena stars. Clearly, their on-screen match-up was a great renewal. It was good to see them together again, though there was far less chemistry than they enjoyed in the first film.

The stunt work was fairly good, though some was a bit over-the-top and not particularly believable. All in all, though, it added a bit to the overall story.

The most disappointing aspects of the movie were select portions of the scripting and casting. For example, young Joaquin speaks in 2005 language - 150 years too early. Those creating the script should have restrained themselves, and used a bit more time to research the language of the era being portrayed in the story.

As to scripting: unless my eyes deceived me, one of the padres in the film (actually, Joaquin's teacher) appeared to be one of the Dons from the first film. I am unsure why this would have been a choice by the casting folks - and further unsure why it would be approved by the producer or the director.

Finally, the film seemed to drag out a bit - didn't need to be >2 hours long, in my estimation.

With all of this said, it is worth seeing. Just don't expect the blockbuster film that was the first "Zorro!"

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.

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.

...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.

Just saw this at an Advanced Screening the other day and must admit i was not particularly looking forward to it. Mainly due to the fact that i loved the original. I loved its tongue in cheek campness, its fun and exciting action scenes, and Anthony Hopkins.

Thankfully LOZ has 2 out of the 3 (no Anthony Hopkins for obvious reasons) and while the film has clearly been dumbed down and made more "family friendly" as with all mainstream Hollywood sequels, it still has Banderas and Zeta Jones clearly having fun with it.

True, some of the CGI looks a bit naff, and there is a terribly unnecessary scene with a horse which made me laugh just because i would have cried because of the terrible effect, but the action scenes are action packed and use a fairly minimal amount of it.

As for the story there isn't really much to say of it, which is probably why it doesn't live up to its predecessors standards. But it trys well enough.

At the end of the day fans of the original Zorro film will probably enjoy this, as long as they don't expect it to be anything other than a fun popcorn sequel.