UofSciFi I absolutely loved the original movie "Mask of Zorro" that came out in 1998. and I could wait to see this one. I did find it rather odd that it took them 7 years to make a sequel...but none the less they finally made it.The good news is that they didn't try rehash the first film all over again with bigger special effects and slightly different circumstances(like many sequels do..example: Die Hard 2) The Bad news is that is cannot hold a candle to the 1998 original. This movie is no where near as good as the first one.Once again, just like with the first film,the music score is great, the actors are perfect for their roles, the scenery is beautiful and the stunts, special effects & action sequences are great.(the first movie got all of those same elements right too)But this movie unlike the first movie, the story isn't as good. at most times the plot is very predictable. However I felt like the writers tried to hard to work in way too much comic relief, and it bogged the story down. The story takes a long time to develop, and when it does finally develop, everything happens pretty much they way you already knew it would.overall its not a bad movie, and it does have its moments. but there is way too much comic relief, and the story moves way too slow.... it is an 5 out of 10. It worth watching once.And if you've not seen the first one...do yourself a favor and watch it

SnoopyStyle 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.

elganeo Why are people bringing up history? OK, I'm British, and yeah the Civil War was about 10 years after this, but it's FICTION! No-one complained when Titanic came out, or did you all think that the love story really happened? It's a movie, it's allowed to bend history! It's FICTION. Steam engines can't really talk, and neither can purple dinosaurs magically grow or communicate! But I really liked it and I prefer it to the first one, probably because I saw this one first.... I thought the plot was excellent, what with Elena being a spy and complex things like that. So well thought out it was confusing at first. Their son was a good actor too. And the Frenchman was a good addition. But the bottom line is that it's fictional, but still operating around real events, regardless of the time period, because it's FICTION. If it was based on a true story, then I understand your argument. Not that I don't in the first place.

TheLittleSongbird 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.