National Treasure: Book of Secrets

I really liked the first movie with these characters but I got frustrated with this sequel. I was expecting much more intelligent puzzles and breathtaking adventure. Instead this movie is a perfect example of a sugarcoated adventure for family viewing in a lazy Saturday night in DVD in pijamas snacking microwave popcorn.

The plot is weak and far from plausible. There are the iconic characters (the smart hero and his love/hate girlfriend, the funny hero's assistant, the divorced hero's parents, the bad but not so bad guy, the good cop and so on). It's too much cliché for a single movie for allowing it to be a good one.

This definitely isn't a "Top 10" adventure movie. It's OK for viewing with the kids and just it.

It was a good movie but not as good as the first one. I think that its just the same story as the first one with very little changes. Treasure hunter Ben Gates tries to clean its name by looking for an ancient treasure. The first half of the movie is kinda slow and even tiresome, too much talking and very little action. But it gets better on the second part towards to the end. The cast is excellent, Nicolas Cage in a role he knows very well, Jon Voight as Cage fathers is very convincing, Ed Harris is the bad guy that the only thing he wants is to find the treasure and keep it to himself, Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent wit a brief but convincing performance and Helen Mirren as Nicola's mother with a good and even funny performance. Although this movie isn't the greatest thing, it is very enjoyable and entertaining, perfect to spend some time with the family.

First of all, National Treasure, the first one, is one of my favorite movie ever. I love history, specifically American history, and it had clever references and facts about American history that lead to finding the treasure in a way that is not predictable. That being said, I felt something was missing in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. It almost felt like the writers could not think of any new, clever clues for Nicolas Cage to solve or more suspense without action scenes.

First lets look at the positives. This movie was very well-done. The acting was as superb as the first (Nicolas Cage and Justin Bartha are amazing). It was very believable. Also the action scenes are excellent and full of invigorating suspense. The scene near the unexpected end where they had to balanced the steel block thing in the cave was terrific. All the action scenes were awesome: right out of an Indiana Jones movie. Another thing I liked was the ironic humor and sarcasm used by Nicolas Cage's character and other characters throughout the movie that gave it a light, fun feel. With interesting history references and a brilliant score by Trevor Rabin, what could be wrong with it?

You may not agree with me. But I felt that the ending, and a few other scenes were rushed. For example, they spent literally about five minutes in Paris both finding and figuring out the clue. After that they moved on to London, they spent about 15 minutes there, 5 of them were spent finding the clue. It all felt rushed which tended to confuse me. And the ending definitely did not satisfy me. It was too sudden and I felt it was incomplete, even though the movie was over two hours long.

As I think back to some of the scenes in the beginning and middle of the movie, I forget why I included "negatives" because it was so brilliant and I loved it as much as the first one. But then I remember the ending. it just didn't satisfy like the last movie did. I can't explain the nice feeling the first movie gave me: its what the perfect movie gives you I guess. Anyway, I would recommend this to anyone who has scene the first one and anyone who would like a good crime/action/adventure flick with excellent acting with lovable and believable characters. It's a great movie, it just didn't live up to my expectations or the original's

There are a select few individuals out there that seem to garner everything they know about life from movies, be it political viewpoints, philosophy, etc. and find it objectionable when a movie is produced purely for entertainment purposes. I can't speak for everyone, but as for myself, I don't want to have to pay to have yet another political viewpoint shoved down my throat (CNN/Foxnews broadcasts 24/7 for that), or to be beaten over the head with with the life philosophy of some bazillionaire producer/director that lives in the Ivory Tower that is Hollywood. I can read Zarathustra, the Tao Tse Ching, or even the Bible for that.

When I go to see a movie, I just wan to be entertained, and National Treasure BoS delivers there. Not the best movie I have ever seen, but it was an entertaining escape from reality for two hours and that it was I pay my money for. For me, the best part of the movie wasn't Nic Cage. He has done so many movies, it seems like he has gotten to the point where he is just punching the clock. He doesn't stand out on film, but he isn't horrible either and that is what we get from him here - a very pedestrian workmanlike performance. I would like to think he has another touchstone performance in him like the one he gave in "Leaving Las Vegas", but if he can still keep getting several million per movie just being average, why put in the effort. Diane Kruger was also pretty average. She shined in the first movie, but not so much here.

For me, John Voight, Justin Bartha and Helen Mirren were what made the movie good. John Voight was great. His character was both funny and endearing and the synergy between him and Mirren was palpable. Mirren showed once again why she is arguably the best actress in the business. Justin Bartha was a scene stealer and had some of the funniest lines (along with Voight).

Finding the lost city of El Dorado, or Quivira, or Cibola (take your pick) would be easier than finding any plausibility in this film. Our hero Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage) goes from one narrow escape to another, as he zooms to Paris, then to London, then to the White House in Washington (with a personal chitchat with the President no less), and then on to Mount Rushmore, in search of, well, in search of ... something. I think he's looking for evidence to clear his family name, in the historical conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. What he actually finds, with superhuman luck, is something else, something he didn't expect to find. But none of it really matters. The plot here is so wildly unbelievable, so far-fetched, and so muddled as to be a cinematic magic carpet ride.

Clearly, "National Treasure: Book Of Secrets" is aimed at kids. It's a highly visual movie, with lots of eye-popping outdoor color images. The physical action is so fast at times, with lots of high speed editing, that there is no danger that the audience will be required to do any thinking. Acting and dialogue are largely irrelevant. And the film has elaborate and expensive production design.

Not all of the conflict is physical. Ben must negotiate with his partner Riley (Justin Bartha), his dad (Jon Voight), his mom (Helen Mirren), and a couple of others, all of whom become involved in Ben's quest. The film has a clever twist, but if you're not paying close attention, it's easy to miss.

There is no sex, nor is there any prohibitive violence here; it's a Disney-type adventure all the way. Still, if the film can get kids interested in history, whether it's the legend of El Dorado or Lincoln's assassination, then I suppose "National Treasure: Book Of Secrets" can be said to have some redeeming value, it's plot implausibility notwithstanding.