A Lenda do 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.

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

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.

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!"

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.