And then there's Zorro. I really liked the first movie in this series, The Mask of Zorro. It had some great swashbuckling moments and some really fun swordfights. It probably doesn't bear up to much critical analysis, but it was a fun ride.
My first glimmerings that there might be a problem came with the announcement of the story for the sequel, The Legend of Zorro. (A sequel nearly a decade in the making, by the way). Apparently they decided that the one thing missing from the great relationship between Zorro and Elena and his role as protector of California… was an annoying child to muck up the works. (Don't get me started on this trend again. I ranted enough the first time around.)
Funny thing is, the child turned out to be the least annoying thing they did with the movie. I don't know what they were thinking, but between a patently formulaic approach to the sequel (a MOTS—More Of The Same—sequel, if there ever was one), shoehorning contemporary politics into the backstory, and sanitizing the fight scenes, they managed to make a film that had none of the charm, wit or entertainment of the first film.
The story decisions all bothered me… the fight over California's vote to join the Union, the French terrorist and his nitroglycerine soap, the Pinkterons and Elena's "undercover" mission… it's like they struggled to come up with an interesting story to follow up the original and finally ended up throwing whatever random thought came to mind on screen.
The vote to join the Union and French terrorist seems like blatant nods to contemporary world politics (defending liberty against the evil terrorist scourge… it just helps that he's French because, apparently, it's okay to hate the French right now.) Look, I understand that 9/11 changed things… but does everything we produce have to echo that?
One of the best parts of the first film was the connection that Banderas and Zeta-Jones had on screen. So what better idea can there be than to have them separate and spend the majority of the movie acting like they hate/love each other, bickering at every opportunity. By the time they finally let them get back together, I've gotta ask "who cares?"
But these were minor annoying quibbles compared to the ridiculous decision that, presumably because there might be children in the audience (thanks, in no small part to that annoying child character, I'm sure), Zorro really shouldn't, presumably, actually USE his sword as a sword is intended to be used.
Apparently, daddy Zorro is a pacifist (at least where the sword is concerned), as all the grand, swashbuckling scenes in this film entail him swooping around, slapping people with the flat of the sword, slamming them into walls and other solid objects and simply avoiding STABBING anyone with that 3 foot piece of sharpened steel he's swinging around! Maybe Mask was guilty of this as well (I know Zorro had his fair share of acrobatics in that one as well) but I'm pretty sure that, once or twice, he actually stabbed, sliced or otherwise inflicted damage on his opponents.
In Legend, he doesn't actually kill any character till nearly the end of the movie, and the first one is played off as an accident (nitroglycerine bad, apparently). It's only that diabolical French terrorist that he actually acts against, and even then, he isn't actively involved in the guy's death… he simply leaves him in a position where his death is assured.
It's not that I want Zorro as some bloodthirsty vigilante, cutting a bloody swath through the film. But you've gotta figure, if he stabbed a couple of these guys he's struggling with early on, he might even the odds a bit and make those fights a little easier, you know?
The long and the short of it? Legend of Zorro has none of the charm, wit or fun of it's predecessor and turned out to be an even more disappointing sequel (in that whole eye candy-coated adventure genre) than the Mummy Returns. And I really hated that one.
My first glimmerings that there might be a problem came with the announcement of the story for the sequel, The Legend of Zorro. (A sequel nearly a decade in the making, by the way). Apparently they decided that the one thing missing from the great relationship between Zorro and Elena and his role as protector of California… was an annoying child to muck up the works. (Don't get me started on this trend again. I ranted enough the first time around.)
Funny thing is, the child turned out to be the least annoying thing they did with the movie. I don't know what they were thinking, but between a patently formulaic approach to the sequel (a MOTS—More Of The Same—sequel, if there ever was one), shoehorning contemporary politics into the backstory, and sanitizing the fight scenes, they managed to make a film that had none of the charm, wit or entertainment of the first film.
The story decisions all bothered me… the fight over California's vote to join the Union, the French terrorist and his nitroglycerine soap, the Pinkterons and Elena's "undercover" mission… it's like they struggled to come up with an interesting story to follow up the original and finally ended up throwing whatever random thought came to mind on screen.
The vote to join the Union and French terrorist seems like blatant nods to contemporary world politics (defending liberty against the evil terrorist scourge… it just helps that he's French because, apparently, it's okay to hate the French right now.) Look, I understand that 9/11 changed things… but does everything we produce have to echo that?
One of the best parts of the first film was the connection that Banderas and Zeta-Jones had on screen. So what better idea can there be than to have them separate and spend the majority of the movie acting like they hate/love each other, bickering at every opportunity. By the time they finally let them get back together, I've gotta ask "who cares?"
But these were minor annoying quibbles compared to the ridiculous decision that, presumably because there might be children in the audience (thanks, in no small part to that annoying child character, I'm sure), Zorro really shouldn't, presumably, actually USE his sword as a sword is intended to be used.
Apparently, daddy Zorro is a pacifist (at least where the sword is concerned), as all the grand, swashbuckling scenes in this film entail him swooping around, slapping people with the flat of the sword, slamming them into walls and other solid objects and simply avoiding STABBING anyone with that 3 foot piece of sharpened steel he's swinging around! Maybe Mask was guilty of this as well (I know Zorro had his fair share of acrobatics in that one as well) but I'm pretty sure that, once or twice, he actually stabbed, sliced or otherwise inflicted damage on his opponents.
In Legend, he doesn't actually kill any character till nearly the end of the movie, and the first one is played off as an accident (nitroglycerine bad, apparently). It's only that diabolical French terrorist that he actually acts against, and even then, he isn't actively involved in the guy's death… he simply leaves him in a position where his death is assured.
It's not that I want Zorro as some bloodthirsty vigilante, cutting a bloody swath through the film. But you've gotta figure, if he stabbed a couple of these guys he's struggling with early on, he might even the odds a bit and make those fights a little easier, you know?
The long and the short of it? Legend of Zorro has none of the charm, wit or fun of it's predecessor and turned out to be an even more disappointing sequel (in that whole eye candy-coated adventure genre) than the Mummy Returns. And I really hated that one.
Comments
Really...I hope you didn't work to hard writing a slam on Zorro. Stating the obvious and all that...
Q