Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Paul Andrews The Mark of Zorro starts in Madrid in Spain as expert swordsman & dueling champion Don Diego (Frank Langella) announces his return home to California, upon arrival back home in California he finds things are not well. The locals that his father once served are now in a state of fear & hate as the new Governor Don Luis Quintero (Robert Middleton) kills, beats, tortures & taxes them making their lives a misery. Don Diego is shocked at what he sees & speaks with his father Don Aleandro Vega (Gilbert Roland) who is powerless to stop Quintero & his bloodthirsty soldiers lead by Captain Esteban (Ricardo Montalban), Diego acts like a clueless buffoon but things are not always what they seem as Diego decides to don the black mask & hat of the legendary outlaw Zorro to right the wrongs around him & put an end to Quintero's tyranny...Directed by Don McDougall this made for telly adventure film was a remake of the classic The Mark of Zorro (1940), I have never seen the 1940 version but apparently the two are virtually identical & while this isn't the type of film I usually watch I thought I would give it a go since it was showing on telly over here. To be fair I didn't think that much of this at all, it's fairly colourful & lasts for less than 80 minutes but there's not much here to get excited about unless your a die-hard Zorro fan. The script moves along at a decent pace but there's little build-up to anything & it tries to juggle some adventure, some romance & sword fighting action without much success. The mark of Zorro just feels so pedestrian & like the afternoon telly film that it is, sure it's watchable if your bored but it never excited me or particularly interested me. It's all rather predictable, from handsome heroes who save the day to family feuds that are resolved to the villains getting their comeuppance. The character's are all broad clichés & I doubt people acted like this back then, a pretty simplistic story that the script doesn't really flesh out to any great effect. I don't know, it's not the type of film that I usually watch so I will go easy on it & it's middling entertainment I suppose so while I can't say I liked it I won't say I hated it, at least I watched it all without getting too bored along the way.Another big problem with this version of The mark of Zorro is the lack of action & when the action occurs it's pretty forgettable stuff with some wimpy sword fights & not much else. This 70's Zorro is certainly a colourful production with vibrant costumes & locations, in fact it looks a little too colourful at times & maybe both the tone & look of the film should have been a bit darker on occasion. Just to emphasise the similarities between this & the 1940 Zorro film this actually reuses the original musical score from the 1940 version by Alfred Newman.Filmed in Tuscon in Arizona this is quite well made on what must have been a tight budget. The acting is alright, Langella is OK but it's difficult to believe no-one recognises Diego & Zorro as the same person, telly regulars Ricardo Montalban & Yvonne DeCarlo provide decent support.The Mark of Zorro is a fairly mundane action adventure that feels like Robin Hood set in the Californian desert as Zorro robs the rich & evil to give back to the poor, it will pass 80 odd minutes but that's about the best thing I can say about it.

Igenlode Wordsmith I've seen various Zorros and can never remember which is which; I vaguely remembered this as one of the good ones (which is not what you would expect from a 1970s TV movie) and tuned in to see when it was broadcast again on television this afternoon. To my surprise and pleasure, I still thought it was pretty good.I can't at this lapse of time remember how much the script takes from the famous 1940s version, but it's not only competent but admirable; I'd infinitely watch a low-budget film with a polished script than a big-budget blockbuster where all the cash has gone on special effects, and this undoubtedly falls into the first category! Don Diego, of course, gets all the quips, but Frank Langella does them ample justice, and is impressive in his dual role, especially in the two episodes at the beginning when you can see his intelligent Diego assessing the situation and coming up with his 'spineless fop' act more or less off the cuff, mid-scene. Ricardo Montalban wins the personality contest by a whisker -- although a really good villain always has an unfair advantage over the hero of the piece. Gilbert Roland doesn't get much to do; I was looking forward to seeing him in this, but had to look up the cast afterwards in order even to be certain which character he'd been playing...Anne Archer as the heroine was the only real disappointment, although the rather abridged plot here doesn't offer much scope for her to duel wits with her lover. Her performance seemed uninspiring, especially compared to Louise Sorel in the part of her vain, self-serving aunt.The main faults I'd find with this version are twofold; first of all, it seems to get more and more compressed as it races towards the end. The opening scenes are expansively paced, but once the Zorro identity has been established, the masked avenger hardly has time to do anything before it's time for the finale! He tears down one notice, pays a nocturnal visit to frighten the Alcade, meets Esteban in his father's house... and then an aristocratic revolt breaks out, and the final duel is due. Not much of a heroic career, really, and I assume this is the result of a TV time-slot and budget.The second problem, possibly related, is that the actual swashbuckling action -- with the exception of said final duel -- doesn't impress very much. We get one of the parody-prone sequences where the villain's henchmen unintelligently attack the hero in ones and twos and are duly dispatched, and a similar old chestnut of a horse chase, where the hero hides behind some bushes and watches the pursuit thunder obliviously past, and that's about it. There's nothing wrong with sticking to the good old conventions, but this isn't the most inspiring rendition of either trope. The duel, however, *is* well done... even if I can't help feeling that killing your enemy by revealing your true identity and then attacking while he is still off his guard with astonishment isn't quite cricket, Diego old chap! Very practical tactics, though.Anyway, on the whole I liked it a good deal. At the beginning of the film I'd probably have considered awarding it an 8, but sadly Anne Archer's 1970s starlet performance and the rather rushed timing later on reduce it from that level. Watch for the Ricardo Montalban/Frank Langella/Louise Sorel triangle, if nothing else; Inez is a wonderfully self-centred character, and the two men play well off each other.

bozsi-1 I haven't seen this TV film for years and would really like to see it again. I think I fell in love with Frank Langella because of it - OK, OK, so I was much younger and more impressionable at the time but, well, he was beguiling. As suggested in one or two other commentaries on this, I felt it was as effective a version, if not even a tad better than the 1940 one - perhaps because of both the eponymous hero's sexual magnetism and the charming, intelligent and spirited Anne Archer's Teresa. From what I remember, the film was to a large extent faithful to Tyrone Power's vehicle, and added a J-ne-sais-quoi to it.Dashing as Power undoubtedly was, to my taste Langella's rich chocolatey voice, commanding height and seductive gaze made this viewer long to be the object of his affections. I admit it, I'm shamefacedly still a bit in love with the character!

grendelkhan This movie was my introduction to Zorro; and, for the time, it was a fine introduction. I loved this film when it first aired (I was 7) and I spent weeks afterward slashing at everything with a stick. The film is still rollicking adventure, even if it doesn't hold a candle to the 1940 version.Frank Langella made a decent Zorro, although he was a little too serious for a swashbuckler. Still, he handled the dual role well and looked the part. Ricardo Montalban, on the other hand, was perfect as the villain. He relished the role and had the right amount of menace, with a twinkle in the eye. He was meant for a role like this.The rest of the cast are fine, with varying degrees of ability. The story moves well and the duels are exciting. The TV budget hampers the spectacle, but not too badly.After viewing it once, I was able to see the film again, nearly 25 years later. By that point, I had seen the Disney Zorro, the 1940 version, the silent version, the Alain Delon version, Zorro the Gay Blade, and a couple of others. The 1940 version is still superior (in my book) but this was still entertaining. The acting was worse than I remembered, but the action was still exciting and Ricardo Montalban was still wonderful. I'd put this ahead of Disney and George Hamilton, but on equal footing with Delon. Tyrone Power is still the king, although Anonio Banderas was great the first time out. This is a worthy entry in the series, even with its faults.