I just got home from a pre-screening of The Legend of Zorro (it is not out for general release until October 28).

Lots of sword play - Zeta-Jones :cool: as sultry as ever - Banderas is...well...Banderas.

The story line is even less plausible than the first Zorro film. There are some wacky anachronisms. For example, the film is set in 1850. The bad guy's main henchman is sporting, and bragging about, his Henry Rifle, which was first produced in 1860, if I recall correctly. Also, the bad guy has a secret weapon which was actually invented in 1864. And these are the small historical (hysterical?) issues.

Many of us have criticized some recent films due to historical inaccuracy. However, this one has no pretenses, in fact, goes out of its way to proclaim it is not meant to be accurate. It is just supposed to be good old fashioned, swashbuckling fun. And that's what it was for me. Thumbs up, here.

I will be interested in seeing if the general release version is the same as what I saw tonight. In the meantime, I think I'll go buckle my swash.

Do they still all wave their swords around like feather dusters, like in the first one?

'Cause that's the one thing that really grated on my nerves...

Zorro movies should have bad swordplay and wacky anachronisms. It's historically accurate. :lol:

Is Antonio Banderas still "vigorous"? ;)