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.
Add a Review
-
MrHeraclius6 March 2020
-
SnoopyStyle9 October 2013It'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. -
christian1236 November 2005Antonio 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 -
Chrysanthepop15 September 2007...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.
-
mls-1128 October 2005We 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!" -
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. -
irish2313 April 2008I had low expectations watching the sequel to the outstanding original Banderas-Hopkins- Zeta-Jones film, and ended up surprised. Most sequels are so appallingly bad it makes one wonder why they were made. This is decent for a sequel, creating a new story but using the same characters.
The problem is that the new story isn't nearly as interesting as the original, and that the filmmakers made the regrettable decision to make this a "family" movie. Which, for some mysterious reason known only to Hollywood, means the inclusion of bathroom humor. The previous film had dignity, style, and a moral core. This just has style.
It also seems jarringly out-of-time. So much of the set looks like the Old West, which means gunslingers. So why is everyone fighting with swords? Especially when the bad guys use guns on everyone but Zorro? It's a weird mishmash that doesn't quite work.
The intensity and focus of the original is missing from this picture, but I'm sure it would appeal to kids and others who like relatively straightforward action films. -
Tigereyes3 November 2005If 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. -
Rob_Taylor20 January 2006Recipe for a block-buster movie: Pick a cultural icon, add in liberal amounts of swashbuckling action, a touch of sizzling chemistry between the two main actors and a plot involving saving lives and you're set.
Recipe for a block-buster sequel: Take the above formula, over-cook the action to ridiculous levels, remove 90% of the chemistry and scale up the "save the xxxxx" plot to involve thousands.
And the sequel formula is what you get with Legend of Zorro. An overdone, overlong and emasculated pale imitation of the first movie.
The action is just plain ridiculous. In fact, it insults your intelligence. Wagons careen through streets on two-wheels, horses leap from bridges onto moving trains and Zorro himself becomes more acrobatic than Jet Li and Jackie Chan rolled into one. It's just plain dumb. A clear example of more being less. To mis-quote Jeff Goldblum's character from Jurassic Park "These people (script-writers and CGI Artists) were so preoccupied with the fact that they could do something they never stopped to think if they should do it!" In short, LOZ is a horrible follow-up to Mask of Zorro. It may have the same setting, characters and even actors. But it's just a horrible mess. that is a shadow of the first movie. Plus, it commits the cardinal sin of any movie - it introduces a child for the sole purpose of irritating adults and making kids like the movie.
In keeping with this more kid-friendly abomination, LOZ features very few deaths. Sure, the lead bad guys all buy the farm, but their minions uniformly fail to be killed by Zorro, leading to the logical conclusion that either a) Zorro is useless, or b) the movie is hideously PC. As a result of this "nice, less gory" Zorro, the movie lacks any punch or real drama. It becomes what it is - a pointless action movie with no surprises and little thought required.
And don't get me started on the horse jokes. "Idiot" doesn't begin to describe whoever wrote those scenes.
Just who are these movies aimed at? Anyone who is either educated, of average or above intelligence or who has any real world experience whatsoever, must surely find these films patronizing and insulting. Are we then to assume that the majority of the movie-going public are uneducated, below par intelligence or 12 years old or younger?
It is once again a sad day for movies. -
DocRedfield30 October 2005As 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.
-
Victor Field17 November 2005One of my favourite entries in Roger Ebert's book of movie clichés states that any movie with the word "legend" in the title will fail to live up to its title; "The Legend of Zorro," though not a stinker, pretty much follows that rule to the letter.
This way-too-belated sequel to "The Mask of Zorro" brings back Antonio Banderas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and director Martin Campbell, but forgets to bring along the passion, high spirit and sense of adventure that made the first movie such fun; Zorro may now be a husband and father, but it's not the presence of the kid that makes the movie a disappointment. In fact, young Joaquin is so spirited that "The Legend of Zorro" might have benefited from being a look at Zorro third generation, since the man in the mask didn't start protecting fellow Californians until he was an adult - following the boy on an adventure, stuff like that. (That his action scenes are actually MORE exciting than his dad's reinforces this impression.)
Unfortunately scriptwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci fluff the movie by awkwardly blending domestic problems - even unto divorce! - with what's basically a spy plot involving smoothie Rufus Sewell, making the movie sometimes seem like a bad episode of "Alias" minus Jennifer Garner (especially in an extended sequence with Mr. and ex-Mrs. Zorro sneaking around at Sewell's house, and in the climax on a runaway train). The movie might have helped from Kurtzman and Orci pretending they were back writing for said show or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and gone for broke, but they don't; it's pretty unexciting for most of the time, and while the movie's sense of humour is a help sometimes, more often it just causes groans.
SPOILER FOR THE CLIMAX.
And as for the train finale, while FX Luddites may be pleased to see the train is a miniature rather than CGI, in this day and age there is no excuse for its fiery demise (complete with that of the villain) to be so obviously a miniature. Even if it is by WETA's Richard Taylor. (And hands up anyone who predicted that CZJ would make a joke about "The drinks are on me" - the evil scheme involves nitroglycerin in wine bottles.)
END OF SPOILER.
Zorro's son and the monk who plays Alfred to Zorro's Batman enliven the movie, and Antonio Banderas also gives more than he gets - but while it's ultimately an okay way to kill two hours, when it's over nothing sticks in your mind the way Zorro singlehandedly wiping out a group of men on horseback in the first movie does. Where there was spirit and a desire to pass on the torch, now there's squabbling. Ironically, it fits that "The Legend of Zorro," like the first movie, was executive produced by Steven Spielberg - it spends too much time Amblin for its own good. -
Within the first five minutes, I knew this movie was not going to be as good as the first one. Some may say that you shouldn't compare a movie its prequel, that a movie should stand alone, but that's dumb and people know it. You cannot watch this film without thinking about Mask of Zorro and recalling just how much more fun it was and, at the same time, how well everything was pulled off.
Now I know there are a lot of people who never saw Legend's prequel, but even if you did, this one's not worth seeing. The action is cheesy and the camera has trouble focusing on it to make it interesting. The plot line is slightly intriguing, but the juvenile way in which the story is written forces you to accept that the movie's not going to try any harder to recognize your intelligence- the movie even gives its key plot twist away before it means to, which kind of ruined it for me. Even Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, both of which were very good in the first film, seemed forced and hammy in Legend.
See, this is the kind of movie that you wouldn't really mind watching on an airplane where you don't have much to do anyway and you don't have to spend any money for it. But if you have to pay to see it, don't. -
The first film was very entertaining, with some well-choreographed sword fights and a witty script. The sequel while entertaining on the most part, is definitely inferior in comparison. What I did like about the sequel was the cinematography, it was very handsome like in the first film. The performances from Banderas and Zeta Jones are impressive , not so much the boy who played their son. (can't remember his name). The costumes were lovely The script wasn't too bad, but a little underdeveloped at times. I will confess I was disappointed in the sword fights, they seemed more like slapstick and a little too clumsy to my liking. The main flaw was the plot, it was a very good idea, but it felt rushed, and it felt as though the director was trying to cram too much into a simple storyline. I also wished they made the villains, played adequately by Rufus Sewell and Michael Emerson, more interesting. I liked the music by James Horner, but you do wish sometimes in the more dramatic scenes, that Hans Zimmer would have been a more appropriate choice. Overall, not bad, but doesn't hold a candle to the first film. 6/10 Bethany Cox.
-
DICK STEEL26 October 2005Finally, after 7 years since the last Hollywood Zorro movie hit the big screen, director Martin Campbell is back with his original cast of Antonio Banderas in the title role, and Catherine Zeta Jones as his wife Elena de la Vega. Set 10 years after the last movie, The Legend of Zorro wastes no time in plunging the audience thick into trademarked action pieces that many associate with the Spanish Fox - the acrobatic lunges, flips, swordfights, whip action and horseback riding.
It's all familiar territory with the romanticized Old California, now at a crossroads where the state is in decision to join the rest of America. Things have changed for the de la Vega family too, as they have a new addition to the family, a son named Joaquin, who takes on traits of his father, but not knowing his father's secret identity.
Naturally, family takes the central theme in this movie. Why do vigilantes wear masks - simply to protect their loved ones as they enroll in the crusade for justice. This film explores the dilemma of the avenger as he struggles to be there for the general public in their hour of need, and the balance of spending enough quality time with his own family.
Relationships aren't rosy with husband and wife, and it's no surprise, they bicker again on screen. And when this concealment and protection of identity is compromised, what could be exploited from it? Plenty of action in this movie to keep Zorro fans happy, and it's a marked improvement from the predecessor too. Zorro moves with guile and swift agility that will raise your eyebrow at the style of his acrobats, befitting his name "the fox". The use of the whip has increased, and so is the intensity of the swordfights.
However, the plot might be a bit of a letdown. It's the usual James Bondish storyline of some Euro-knight baddie in some highly secret underground organization trying to achieve the total destruction of America. One forgot to remind him that he'll need a lot more smarter accomplices in order to fulfill his desire for world domination. With 4 writers credited for the story, it does seem convoluted somewhat to include too many scenes which clocked the movie slightly longer than 2 hours. Some comedy was injected, but those with Tornado seemed a bit contrived (a horse that smokes and drinks? Come on...) The pacing too is somewhat erratic, dragging some scenes unnecessarily and introducing subplots that in my opinion, went against the motivation of characters. There's a stab at the high-handed tactics of a certain government agency, and it's like watching a precursor of spy-versus-spy games. The soundtrack seemed to rehash the love them from the earlier movie too, playing it each time Elenor comes on screen, and the camera still soft-focuses her a lot too.
But what could have been given longer screen time is the on-screen banter between Banderas and Zeta Jones. That was what made the first film likable and popular, and while this movie had flashes and moments of it, we could have had more. One could have also expected the effects to be seamless given today's technology, and nothing new presented on screen, but while the end result was impressive, there are certain frames that were obviously blue-screened and superimposed.
Despite its drawbacks, this is still a worthy Zorro movie, and with the signature shot of Zorro on Tornado hoisting its legs high in the sky in an all-ready posture ready to strike, with sword drawn, all can be forgiven. -
Fluke_Skywalker28 February 2015Everything 'The Mask of Zorro' did so perfectly the sequel screws up and then some. The original remains a thrilling and sexy swashbuckler that no film in its genre--not even the first 'Pirates of the Caribbean'--has matched.
The sequel on the other hand is contrived, dumbed down, and worst of all, dull. It's an eye-rollingly juvenile movie that will have you sighing in frustration from the moment it begins.
I think I may have to go and re-watch 'The Mask of Zorro' now just to get the taste out of my mouth. Not that I need an excuse to watch it. It's a classic. -
jayne613857 November 2005It started out with promise, but it soon changed into something awkward and inaccurate in a lot of historical facts, which weakened the plot for me. It was also too violent for its PG rating, and deserved a PG-13 rating. California became a state in 1850, which is when this movie is supposed to be... however, they mentioned several times "the Civil War" between the states, and how the United States is divided. They also had Confederate soldiers in a couple of scenes. They were ten years ahead of themselves, and also there is a scene when it becomes a state and a man in formal attire signing the official papers looked similar to Lincoln, who didn't become President until 1860. Also it wasn't that easy to get a divorce in 1850, like Elena did. Three months after she kicked her husband out of the house and divorced him, she was engaged to another man, which was highly scandalous, because Catholics didn't remarry at that point without being ex-communicated. It had unbelievable stunts and stupid twists. The plot dragged on for the longest time. So, as you can tell, I really didn't enjoy this movie.
-
JamesHitchcock9 November 2005The character of Zorro, as originally conceived, was a sort of Robin Hood of Spanish-ruled California, but this film updates the story to a setting more familiar to American audiences, the Old West. The year is 1850, the date of California's admission to the Union as a free state, something that has caused consternation in the slave states of the South. Zorro is still righting wrongs, fighting injustice and combating those Southern sympathisers who are attempting to sabotage the ballot on the State constitution. Zorro's activities, however, have not impressed his beautiful wife Elena, who thinks that he is neglecting her and their young son Joaquin. Elena divorces Zorro and gets engaged to an old flame, a French Count named Armand, despite the fact that he is an obvious cad. Indeed, Armand is something worse than a cad; he is a member of a ruthless secret society which already controls Europe and is attempting to destroy the United States. Armand is part of a conspiracy to produce nitroglycerine on his California estate and to ship it by train to the Confederate Army in the South who will use it in a surprise attack on Washington.
It is obvious from the above synopsis that this is not the sort of film that places a high premium on historical accuracy. One can amuse oneself while watching it by playing "spot the goof". There was no transcontinental railway joining California to the Eastern states until 1869. Although some in the Southern states were already discussing the possibility of secession in 1850, there was no Confederacy, and no Confederate Army, until 1861. Nitroglycerine did exist in 1850 (it had been discovered in 1846) but it was regarded as too dangerously unstable to be of any military value. We see Abraham Lincoln at the California statehood ceremonies, at a time when he would still have been working as a lawyer in Illinois. (The President at the time was Millard Fillmore). We see a map showing the twentieth-century political boundaries of the American states. The Catholic Church condones divorce and remarriage. The name "Armand" is occasionally pronounced as "Amande" (a feminine name in French). The Spanish word "constitucion" is seen misspelled in the English way as "constitution".
Much of this historical inaccuracy is probably deliberate. Even though none of the three leading actors are actually American, the film's politics are quite defiantly nationalistic; America's westward expansion into previously Mexican territory is presented as part of the march of freedom, and the fight against slavery is brought in as part of this general theme. (President Fillmore does not have the same standing as an icon of freedom as does Lincoln). The main villain is a decadent European aristocrat; ten years ago he would probably have been an Englishman, but the French now seem to have usurped Britain's Least Favoured Nation status in Hollywood. Another recent film, "The Brothers Grimm", also has a French villain; France's stance on the Iraq war may be to blame. The motto of Armand's secret society, "Orbis Unum" or "One World", may be a covert reference to the UN, an organisation which features in many American conspiracy theories. (This is not, incidentally, the first Hollywood film in recent years to project modern America's fears of foreign conspiracies back into the nineteenth century; there was a rather similar plot line in "Wild Wild West").
Despite its questionable politics, there are some enjoyable things about this film. Catherine Zeta Jones, one of the most beautiful actresses working in the cinema at present, has never looked lovelier than she did in the original Zorro film, "The Mask of Zorro", and her beauty has not diminished in the intervening seven years. Antonio Banderas makes a convincingly dashing action hero, ably assisted in his swashbuckling heroics by both Ms Jones herself and Adrian Alonso as Joaquin. This is a family-values thriller; as in "The Mummy Returns" the hero is helped in his struggle by his wife (played in both cases by a beautiful British brunette, Rachel Weisz in the earlier film) and their cheeky but lovable young son. The action sequences are generally well done, and there is an amusingly detestable comic villain in Nick Chinlund's McGivens. Nevertheless, the film often lacks the freshness and vitality of its predecessor. I hope that this sequel will be the last; any attempt at making this into a lengthy series would, I feel, be subject to the law of diminishing returns which normally afflicts such franchises. 6/10 -
LupinsGal20041 November 2005I saw the movie mostly because it was getting terrible reviews in the papers. usually when paid critics give movies bad reviews, it means they're pretty good.
I was right. The acting was excellent in this movie. Perhaps even better than in the first. The action kept the movie going, the story was interesting, comedy kept things light, the violence wasn't gratuitous, the swearing was minimal and tame at best, and the sexual gratuity was non-existent (Which proves that if you need gratuitous sex/violence and foul language, its only because you need to use it to hide all the stuff your movie lacks- like plot, acting ability, and good directing.) but this movie had excellent acting, a good storyline and lots of action to fall back on. It didn't need any of that "Shock value" crap a lot of movies need to hide behind. So I enjoyed it very much. It kept my attention through the entire length of the film.
I'm not saying this movie isn't without its faults. There were some scenes that just kind of dragged on a bit, but for the most part, those complaints are extremely minor. I'd highly recommend this movie to anyone who loves action, romance and good laughs.
Don't listen to the "paid" critics who have been giving this movie poor reviews. Three of the movies they raved about this year.... I fell asleep at, and others in the same theater walked out on. Shows how much they know.
See this movie. Was worth the money!! -
dkochan29 October 2005I was looking forward to this movie for months and personally I loved it. I laughed and cheered throughout the movie. If you want a Zorro adventure/action flick you will get it. Catharine Zeta-Jones role is enhanced and she gets to be more than a pretty face. I loved Elena's role as Zorro's partner as well as wife. The mini-me Zorro son was fine with me also and got lots of laughs from the audience. Good villains and great scenery from San Luis Potosi in Mexico. Good stunts especially with the horse. While some of the plot may seem unbelievable you must suspend belief and just sit back for a good time. The audience applauded at the end. Nice music too!
-
govenor_phatt25 October 2005Just 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. -
ma-cortes28 April 2008This inferior sequel is a lavish swashbuckler starred by Zorro, as a dashing masked avenger; again Banderas dons a black outfit and becomes the Zorro riding in the hoofprints. This is a zesty recounting of saga of legendary masked rider , though not as distinctive as previous entry, Zorro faces danger from marauding Pinkerton officials as well as corrupt villain. Rufus Sewell as an elegant French villain and leader of knights of Aragon. After numerous setbacks the hero and his lovely heroine, a wonderful Catherine Zeta-Jones, help the good people of California thwart the greedy schemes of a meanie who stands in the way of statehood for the territory. The nimble actor Banderas runs and jumps all over the images of this movie, as he deals with the oppressor with a breathtaking finale over a train and wreak havoc included.
In the first Zorro(1998) Antonio Banderas took a chance and jumped from comedy-action to costumed comedy-adventures; and this following he repeats relishing his secret identity with cape and sword; executing bounds and leaps, twists and climbs and throughly enjoys himself. A great casting and an unstopped action keep this picture moving at a rapid clip. Banderas made the character of Zorro his own and quickly established himself as a Latin legend. Antonio Banderas is terrific as the Zorro, well accompanied by ideal heroine, a beautiful Zeta-Jones. Nice secondary cast, such as Shuler Hensley, overacting outrageously as the villain, and repeating actors as Tony Amendola and Pedro Armendariz Jr. Furthermore, overwhelming swordplay and horse action and displays too much of everything. Evocative musical score by James Horner and colorful cinematography by Philippe Rousselot. Another version about this known character created by Johnston McCulley are the following : The mute classic adaptation ¨Mark of Zorro¨(1920, Fred Niblo, with Douglas Fairbanks), the classic ¨Mark of Zorro¨(1940, Robert Mamoulian with Tyrone Power), ¨The mask of Zorro¨(1998, Martin Campbell with Banderas) and European version ¨Zorro¨(1975, Duccio Tessari with Alain Delon). -
phil-107626 August 2006While fighting for freedom is all well and good, fabricating a "confederate" army in 1850 makes the movie seem like it's in a parallel universe. If this were sci-fi that would be OK, but the whole thing was so silly that I couldn't take anything else in the movie very seriously. This was too bad, since the action sequences and the chemistry between Zeta and Banderas was nice. The first Zorro movie also had some historical inaccuracies, but so obscure that it was no big deal. Especially annoying were the typical confederate stooge-types working for the bad guy. I know Hollywood hardly ever gets history right, but rarely does it get history so wrong.
-
MovieZoo28 October 2005When I saw the first trailer, I knew Zorro was going to be in trouble. It was clear his enemies were hiding behind the cameras. If only there had been a Tornado to blow away those enemies.
I really want to say, "go see this movie if you only want to see some adventure, any adventure" but I can't. Yes there is some adventure. It was fun to watch Zorro do his job. But I found myself wanting to get pleasing scenes back that were yanked away by converting serious moments into scene-killing comic relief. One touching, romantic scene was making me feel all soft and warm, when all of a sudden, the two adults became more like Homer and Marge Simpson. Sorry Homer and Marge, I still love you. There were too many mundane morphing scenes. As a result the movie became the same. It showed promise at various points only to become something less. I think the film makers believed they were adding comic relief but instead came up with comic distress.
This is not a movie for the seasoned Zorro fan or the fan who still craves swashbuckling, romance, thrills on the big screen and comedy between scenes(as opposed to adding comedy to serious moments in a scene).
Nick Chinlund, Banderas, Catherine Zeta Jones and Alonso did their jobs well, considering what they were given. Tornado is a beautiful horse but he should stick to his day job and avoid being a comic or a sidekick(straight-horse as it were).
Still, I give it a fair 6 out of 10. -
The wonderful Catherine Zeta Jones and Antonio Banderas reprise their roles as Elena and Zorro and are joined by their characters' son Joaquin (Adrian Alonso) in this fast-paced adventure set at the time of California's incipient state-hood. Alejandro's heroism is destroying his family in more ways than one, and the very fabric of 19th century Californian society is also being challenged by a threat of organized terrorism. Zorro, his wife and child must all pool their resources to fight threats to their family and their homeland.
If this sounds like heavy stuff, don't be fooled, this is a lighter film, which feels a bit more like Shanghai Noon than the original Zorro. The stunt-work and sword-fighting are entertaining, over-the-top and not to be taken seriously.
Martin Campbell, who appears to have matured into a very competent studio director (despite some questionable early efforts) does a very nice job with the directing,and the cinematography and editing are fine. The acting is all good - across the board. And if you happen to rent the DVD, you will definitely enjoy the extras which are nearly as fun as the movie itself.
The film's greatest weakness is, not surprisingly, its script. Like most WGA scripts, the script comes across as having been written by committee, in an ad-hoc manner, and without much forethought or a central premise. The dialog is sometimes very weak, and the film is driven less by exposition and plot than audiovisual momentum. If not for the cinematography, acting talent, directing, and editing, this could have been a total wash-out.
Recommended for fans of the original who can keep their expectations in check, and light action fans. -
spencerkids2 November 2005I am a mom of 5 children, so when I get a night out to see a movie I don't want to see a dud. When It is a date with your husband it is even tougher. It can't be too much of a chic flick and I don't want to see something too violent. It isn't easy to find a movie with some action (Dad) some romance (Mom) and some comedy (both). This movie did it. Now I am not saying it should get some academy award but I sure wish there were more movies like this. It was suspenseful without being gory. It was romantic and sexy without the sex (women love that). The addition of the child added a parent component that we liked. It really could be considered as a family movie for older children. I can't specifically recall any profanity (that doesn't mean there wasn't).This movie was definitely not a waste of a babysitter. It was also nice and long for those of us with a longer attention span who want a more developed plot. The story was interesting and entertaining and funny (if you catch it).