The Legend of Zorro
Oct. 29th, 2005 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eregyrnWent to see "The Legend of Zorro" with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
telepresence last night. It is not a great movie. It's an okay movie; reasonably fun. It could have been about 20 minutes shorter. Its script could have used a little more work. Its story could have been a little clearer, and better-structured.
So, no, it is not on the sublime level that the first movie was -- but I kind of wonder if any second-movie can achieve that, when the essence of the first movie was "we're not expecting much out of this, and... oh my god, not only does this not suck, but this is *exactly* everything it ought to be!" Because that means that part of the reaction to the first movie is not just for how good it is, but how pleasantly surprising it is, you know? Sequels never get to have that "pleasant surprise" aspect. The best they could hope for would be, "pleasant surprise that it is a decent sequel". Talk about "lowerrrrrrrred ex-pec-taa-aa-tions". (POTC, I'm lookin' at you, too.)
Anyway... some specific good points and head-scratching points, behind
Odd:
1. A significant part -- indeed, a CRUCIAL part -- of the plot depends on Elena filing for a divorce from Alejandro/Zorro. And, um... this is 1850s California, ruled by the Spanish Dons. The VERY CATHOLIC Spanish Dons. Catholicism is all over the place, visually, and in the prominent character of Brother Ignatio. Am I merely ignorant of history, and was Spanish California in the mid-19th century known throughout the world for its quickie Catholic divorces?
2. Another significant part of the plot involves the impending Civil War, because California is about to become a U.S. state, and the South, the Confederacy (when did they actually start using that term?), is not thrilled at that idea since California will not come in as a slave state. So, fine, whatever... but DUDE. It makes my head hurt when the Confederate colonel guy who is in on the Big Plot actually comes out and says stuff like "the impending civil war". Guys -- the South was really, really clear on the point that to *them*, it was the "war of secession", the "war of Southern independence", or the "war of Northern aggression". ("The war between the states" wasn't coined until after the war was over.)
Er...:
1. We're pretty sure that nitroglycerin doesn't actually work like that, but... ehn, whatever. This is supposed to be a basic retro swashbuckling serial adventure. It's not like you expect huge scientific accuracy from it. (Actually, particular props go out to the fact that the Secret Laboratory where they were extracting the nitro from soap included, in the mid-background, a big sphere that glowed green. Why? Because it had no discernible purpose in the process, but it was like a visual shorthand for "quasi-fantasy SCIENCE being done here".)
Good:
1. Major props to the writers and the director and whoever: Elena still kicked MAJOR ass. Like, not just being feisty. And not kicking token ass, either. More than in the first film, arguably. She got several significant fights to herself, only required Zorro's assistance in one of them when the odds kept getting worse, and at the end, she got her own solo fight against a secondary bad-guy (while Zorro was duelling the primary bad-guy elsewhere), and it was a prolonged serious fight in which she was unarmed, and she STILL kicked his bald, creepy ass. In a gown with petticoats, and for all I can tell, a corset as well. So good on the movie for not forgetting this point, and for not relegating her to the passive female role just because she had become a mother.
2. Including a little kid is *ALWAYS* tricky. Credit where it's due (both the writing and the actor) for Joaquin not being an obnoxious addition to the franchise. Cute as a button, yes -- but I never wanted to punt him. (For anyone keeping score: he wins out over the kid they introduced in "The Mummy 2").
3. The sword-fighting choreography was actually good. Rufus Sewell -- good for you, you really manage to make it look like you are *attacking*, rather than just trading endless 4-6, 4-6, 4-6 parries with your opponent.
4. A nice/interesting shout-out -- the main bad-guy (the aforementioned Rufus Sewell) is a French count. His intro went by a little too quickly for me, but later there's a bit where you get to see a map on which his title is written, and it's the Comte de la Fere. Really, any swashbuckling fan worth their salt should get that reference: in "The Three Musketeers", the Comte de la Fere was Athos. 200 or so years later, I guess, and his descendants have become evil megalomaniacs. Alas. Still, cute detail.
5. Yay! Tony Amendola! Doesn't do much, but always nice to see him.
So in short -- not as bad as some of the reviews are suggesting. Not sublime. Not the magical holy grail, a sequel better than the first movie. Has some flaws. But a fun flick.
telepresence last night. It is not a great movie. It's an okay movie; reasonably fun. It could have been about 20 minutes shorter. Its script could have used a little more work. Its story could have been a little clearer, and better-structured. So, no, it is not on the sublime level that the first movie was -- but I kind of wonder if any second-movie can achieve that, when the essence of the first movie was "we're not expecting much out of this, and... oh my god, not only does this not suck, but this is *exactly* everything it ought to be!" Because that means that part of the reaction to the first movie is not just for how good it is, but how pleasantly surprising it is, you know? Sequels never get to have that "pleasant surprise" aspect. The best they could hope for would be, "pleasant surprise that it is a decent sequel". Talk about "lowerrrrrrrred ex-pec-taa-aa-tions". (POTC, I'm lookin' at you, too.)
Anyway... some specific good points and head-scratching points, behind
Odd:
1. A significant part -- indeed, a CRUCIAL part -- of the plot depends on Elena filing for a divorce from Alejandro/Zorro. And, um... this is 1850s California, ruled by the Spanish Dons. The VERY CATHOLIC Spanish Dons. Catholicism is all over the place, visually, and in the prominent character of Brother Ignatio. Am I merely ignorant of history, and was Spanish California in the mid-19th century known throughout the world for its quickie Catholic divorces?
2. Another significant part of the plot involves the impending Civil War, because California is about to become a U.S. state, and the South, the Confederacy (when did they actually start using that term?), is not thrilled at that idea since California will not come in as a slave state. So, fine, whatever... but DUDE. It makes my head hurt when the Confederate colonel guy who is in on the Big Plot actually comes out and says stuff like "the impending civil war". Guys -- the South was really, really clear on the point that to *them*, it was the "war of secession", the "war of Southern independence", or the "war of Northern aggression". ("The war between the states" wasn't coined until after the war was over.)
Er...:
1. We're pretty sure that nitroglycerin doesn't actually work like that, but... ehn, whatever. This is supposed to be a basic retro swashbuckling serial adventure. It's not like you expect huge scientific accuracy from it. (Actually, particular props go out to the fact that the Secret Laboratory where they were extracting the nitro from soap included, in the mid-background, a big sphere that glowed green. Why? Because it had no discernible purpose in the process, but it was like a visual shorthand for "quasi-fantasy SCIENCE being done here".)
Good:
1. Major props to the writers and the director and whoever: Elena still kicked MAJOR ass. Like, not just being feisty. And not kicking token ass, either. More than in the first film, arguably. She got several significant fights to herself, only required Zorro's assistance in one of them when the odds kept getting worse, and at the end, she got her own solo fight against a secondary bad-guy (while Zorro was duelling the primary bad-guy elsewhere), and it was a prolonged serious fight in which she was unarmed, and she STILL kicked his bald, creepy ass. In a gown with petticoats, and for all I can tell, a corset as well. So good on the movie for not forgetting this point, and for not relegating her to the passive female role just because she had become a mother.
2. Including a little kid is *ALWAYS* tricky. Credit where it's due (both the writing and the actor) for Joaquin not being an obnoxious addition to the franchise. Cute as a button, yes -- but I never wanted to punt him. (For anyone keeping score: he wins out over the kid they introduced in "The Mummy 2").
3. The sword-fighting choreography was actually good. Rufus Sewell -- good for you, you really manage to make it look like you are *attacking*, rather than just trading endless 4-6, 4-6, 4-6 parries with your opponent.
4. A nice/interesting shout-out -- the main bad-guy (the aforementioned Rufus Sewell) is a French count. His intro went by a little too quickly for me, but later there's a bit where you get to see a map on which his title is written, and it's the Comte de la Fere. Really, any swashbuckling fan worth their salt should get that reference: in "The Three Musketeers", the Comte de la Fere was Athos. 200 or so years later, I guess, and his descendants have become evil megalomaniacs. Alas. Still, cute detail.
5. Yay! Tony Amendola! Doesn't do much, but always nice to see him.
So in short -- not as bad as some of the reviews are suggesting. Not sublime. Not the magical holy grail, a sequel better than the first movie. Has some flaws. But a fun flick.
