ज़ोरो 2: ज़ोरो की ललकार... फिर एक बार!

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.

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.

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.

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.