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

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.

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.

Antonio Banderas is back under the mask of Zorro, the 19th Century swashbuckler who must face another dangerous mission, although he promised his wife Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) that he'd give up his life of adventure for a quiet family life as Alejandro de la Vega. But those who opposed California becoming a state in the Union are planning a new threat that might change their plans.

The Mask Of Zorro was a pretty good film. The sequel isn't as good yet it's still enjoyable. I personally would rather have the PG-13 rating but surprisingly the sequel didn't actually suck. I have to give credit to the cast and director. Martin Campbell knows how to direct action and he made this film very entertaining to watch. The story is a little weak and there isn't really anything new to found here but the action makes up for that.

The acting is solid just like the first one. Antonio Banderas takes the role of Zorro again and he does a good job. Catherine Zeta Jones returns as Elena and she also does a pretty good job. These two have a lot of chemistry together and they are interesting to watch on screen. The new addition to the cast and the person who almost ruined the film is Adrian Alonso. He plays Joaquin, the son of Zorro and Elena. He has a few funny lines but for the most part, he is really annoying. His role should have been cut since he almost ruined the entire movie.

Many people are complaining that the new rating kills the film and I disagree. The fight scenes are tamer and safer when compared to the original. He actually doesn't really use his sword to kill nor is much blood shown. However, the fight scenes are still pretty good and there are a lot of entertaining scenes like the train scene at the end. There were some boring scenes but they didn't last long. Also, the film is really cheesy and some of this does get annoying, nothing too major though. In the end, if you expect something like the original movie than you will end up disappointed. However, if you want something in the vein of National Treasure, a safe family action film, then this sequel is for you and it can really be enjoyed by adults too. Rating 6/10

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.