National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
229 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Decent film
AllTheMountains31 December 2007
National Treasure: Book of Secrets is a decent film. Nothing more, nothing less. I came out of the theater content, and yet by the next hour I'd forgotten much of what had taken place. Such is the case for most films now, however.

Compared to the first film, the plot is weak (certainly not as tightly drawn as the former) but the energy is the same and the humor is the same, and overall it's still as watchable as the first. Helen Mirren and Ed Harris were also very good, and somewhat surprising, additions to the cast.

Essentially, the movie is on the ridiculous/unbelievable side, but it's worth a watch. I don't think I'd pay another 10 dollars to see it again in theaters, but waiting for a rental will do.
95 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good entertainment
good_dn19 December 2007
I will keep it short and simple. Just watched it, paid 10$ for it, it is worth it. Not much of details as you would expect out of a great movie, not much of substance in the movie itself however the acting and the pace of the movie is so beautiful you wont think of the flaws in the intricate plans they carry out in the movie. The subtle comedy is really nice and they have kept the first movie in consideration and have not brought many new characters. It is not a movie that you would think a lot about after you come out of the hall, however you will not think anything else either while the movie is going on. I will give it 7 for the sheer value of entertainment and nothing else and of course the one liners that keep popping up which actually make you laugh.
193 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An entertaining movie
violentsociopath24 December 2007
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).
133 out of 212 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining and Full of Action Adventure
claudio_carvalho13 January 2010
During a lecture about John Wilkes Booth and Thomas Gates, Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage) and his father Patrick Gates (Jon Voight) are surprised by Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) that claims that their ancestor was a conspirator in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln based on the missing page of Booth's diary that he possesses. The outraged Ben decides to prove the honor of his ancestor and together with his wife Abigail (Diane Kruger) and his best friend, the writer Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), they head to France, England and Washington to collect clues to lead them to a lost city of gold Cinola and clean the name of Thomas Gates. But Mitch Wilkinson is following each step of Ben and his friends to take the merit of finding the treasure for himself.

"National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is an entertaining and full of action adventure that follows the style of Indiana Jones combined with "Da Vinci Code. The story is developed in high pace, with likable characters and funny situations. Nicolas Cage and the gorgeous German Diane Kruger show a wonderful chemistry and Jon Voight, Justin Bartha and Helen Mirren give a magnificent support. Ed Harris is a very confused and ambiguous villain and his true motives are never clear, Harvey Keitel has a minor role and Bruce Greenwood performs again the role of president of the United States of America that seems to be tailored for this great actor. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Lenda do Tesouro Perdido – Livro dos Segredos" ("The Legend of the Lost Treasure – Book of Secrets")
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyable and recommendable
barrys821 January 2008
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.
51 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The secret's out: the formula still works with "National Treasure" sequel
Movie_Muse_Reviews25 December 2007
The follow up to the 2004 box office surprise "National Treasure" is everything you'd expect. Thank goodness. It should come as no surprise that the conspiracy-based code-cracking mystery adventure is still just as hot as it was in the "year of "The Da Vinci Code."" There is nothing new, nothing special or unexpected about "Book of Secrets" only Ed Harris replacing Sean Bean as the rival treasure seeker. That, and the addition of Helen Mirren as Nicholas Cage's mother to strengthen the film's female roles thanks to leading lady Diane Kruger's utter mediocrity. The film has all the same history mystery you remember, the national (and now international) landmarks, the witty inserts from Justin Bartha's character Riley, and of course the preposterous plans for Benjamin Franklin Gates to get whatever he's after. In other words, if you're looking for something different, more clever, or intellectually stimulating, read the Da Vinci Code again and don't bother with this film. If you want more quirky, ridiculous, treasure-seeking fun that picks up right where the last left off, this is your ticket. ~Steven C
66 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sequel plenty of tension, intrigue and especial effects galore
ma-cortes13 April 2009
Again new adventures with Benjamin Gates (Nicolas Cage) , a descendant from a historical line familiar whose mission was guard a hidden national treasure . This time happen the followings events , as the film starts with the Lincoln death and James Wilkes Booth saying the famous words , ¨Sic Semper Tiranus¨ .Benjamin's ancestor named Thomas Gates (Joel Gretsch) is spontaneously implicated as key conspirator in Abraham Lincoln death caused by a missing page of the murderer's diary and found now . Ben along with his friend Poole (Justin Bartha) and his ex-fiancée Abigail (Diane Kruger) will take on lots of adventures , risks and confronting a stubborn enemy (Ed Harris). Ben will attempt demonstrate the true and he's determined to prove his great-grandfather's innocence . Poole , Abigail, Ben , his father (John Voight) and later his mother (Helen Mirren) undergo a chase that take them from Paris'statue of Liberty , London's Buckinham Palace , White House , including kidnapping of the US President (Bruce Greenwood) , and Mount Rushmore . Plus , Inspector Saduski (Harvey Keitel)and underlings (Alicia Coppola) are also to the hunting of the chain of clues .

This amusing movie displays suspense , noisy action , tension , humor and extraordinary adventures . The picture blends the ¨Spielberg's Indiana Jones¨ rip-roaring feats and mystery from ¨Da Vinci Code¨ by Dan Brown . It's a pretty amusing cinematic roller coaster that have you on the edge of your seat . The film cast is pretty good , in fact , it includes includes three Oscar winners : Nicolas Cage, Helen Mirren and Jon Voight ; and two Oscar nominees: Harvey Keitel and Ed Harris . Stimulating action set pieces illuminate the full-blown adventures of our protagonists with breathtaking final attraction in the scenes of the underground Olmeca temple . Similar technicians outfit , adding a lively musical score by Trevor Rabin . Replacing the previous cameraman Caleb Deschanel by Amir Mokri and John Schwartzman who make a glamorous cinematography . However , director of photography Amir Mokri was replaced by John Schwartzman several weeks into shooting, this was reportedly due to "creative differences" between Mokri and director Jon Turteltaub. The flick is again lavishly produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and stunningly directed by John Turteltaub . The picture will appeal to Nicolas Cage fans and those have seen the previous part.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting...I liked It, but something feels missing...
grandslam4027 December 2007
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
64 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sugarcoated adventure for family viewing
charlesdias27 December 2007
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.
27 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than the first
Dragoneyed3636 June 2008
National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets is a very interesting film. I was forced on many occasions to watch the first and I thought it was just alright. Then I saw this movie. They go all out. I have never really liked Nicholas Cage, but he does just fine in this movie. Helen Mirren is fun to see, and the story is very fun and enthralling. There is not much I could really say about the movie, for I have not seen it too many times, and it is a hard film to review without giving too much excitement away. It really is a lot faster, slicker and enjoyable than the first, and as a movie itself it is pretty darn good and well made. I also do not typically enjoy action movies, so that is a nice compliment coming from me. See it if you are interested in anyway.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Search Of El Dorado
Lechuguilla27 May 2008
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.
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Nutshell Review: National Treasure: Book of Secrets
DICK STEEL18 December 2007
If I may be able to conjure up conspiracy theories of my own, then I will attempt to hypothesis how National Treasure came about to debut on the big screen, based on opportunities which presented itself at the right time. First, the popularity of Dan Brown's controversial The Da Vinci Code, which was made into a movie of its own, but took a tad too long in doing so. Topping the bestseller charts around the world, it made Hollywood execs sit up and realize that wild goose chases and solving riddles and clues do make an interesting, workable formula. Coupled by the fact that the Indiana Jones trilogy (at the time) probably will not have another sequel see the light of day, then the onus is on crafting a tale based on controversies, with Indy Jones tendencies, and chances are a new winner will be born.

Hence, National Treasure in the year end of 2004, which made a decent dent in the box office, starring Nicolas Cage as an Indy like clone Benjamin Gates, embroiled in a mystery of the Templar's treasure, with sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) as the tech wizard necessary to assist him, while at the same time romancing Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), who joins his band of treasure seekers against her wishes. The Indy references don't just stop here, they extend to having a Henry Jones resemblance in Jon Voight as dad Patrick Gates. If you were to deck Cage in a fedora, whip and gun, the references will be just too blatant.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The important question is, is the sequel Book of Secrets as good as, or can be accredited with the rare accolade of being better than the original? Well, in all honesty it's still an entertaining ride, as this time we go around the world (OK, so perhaps just Paris and London), versus the original story being US-centric. However, like the first installment, the material, clues and riddles are still quite US history heavy, so if you're well versed with certain characters (brought to life early in the movie) or events (thanks to paying attention during history lessons), then yes, Book of Secrets will give you an additional boost in being able to identify with it. Otherwise, don't fret, as the casual movie goer with popcorn in hand will definitely not feel lost.

The narrative and plot still feel a little staged and rigged for convenience (and run time of course), as one event will inevitably lead to the next and to the inevitable ending (like how CSI solves crime within 45 minutes sans ads), but they're still a lot of fun watching how the characters go through the motion in believing that they're onto something really big. While the first had a lot of puzzles to solve, which kept some of us guessing and playing along as well, this time round the number of riddles have been reduced significantly, and signs of Mission: Impossible creeping in as our band of treasure hunters seek to perform the impossible, pertaining to levels of security guarding their mark.

In an excuse to make the sequel, we have Ben Gates and GATESENIOR reuniting to clear the good name of their ancestor, who's recently accused of being a co-conspirator, or even mastermind, behind the assassination of US President Abramham Lincoln. And of course, help comes in the form of Abigail, who's now estranged from Gates, trusty tech sidekick with the complementary witty lines Riley (and his red Ferarri), and now joined by Ben's mom Emily Appleton, played by Helen Mirren, who's in the movie to contrast her relationship with Patrick to that between Ben and Abigail.

However, we're not really interested in whimsical attempts to add depth to characters, are we? Sure they have their issues with one another, and with Ed Harris' Mitch Wilkinson being the token and very bland bad guy wanting to make his mark on history, the focus more often than not is to shift to the next big stunt / chase sequence. Like the first movie, one of the highlights touted in the trailer involves the art of balancing, which unfortunately, was already done in the first movie. Don't you just hate repeated stunts? And toward the end, I can't help but to compare it to Jackie Chan's The Myth, which in itself was somewhat of a treasure- hunter movie, involving the elixir of life (We're still stuck with gold here though).

And add to that Harvey Keitel's FBI agent Sadusky, the office of the most powerful man in the world, and teases from the Book of Secrets, we've got ourselves a handful being squeezed within 2 hours. Not to forget Nicolas Cage's absolutely horrendous haircut, the final verdict is that it's a fairly decent year end blockbuster which primed itself for yet another sequel, courtesy of page 47 of the titular book, if the box office numbers prove favourable.
114 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fairly Entertaining
moviewizguy3 June 2008
Treasure hunter Benjamin Franklin Gates looks to discover the truth behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by uncovering the mystery within the 18 pages missing from assassin John Wilkes Booth's diary, after learning out that his great-grandfather could've been involved in the assassination. Can Ben clear his family's name? Or will his family be linked to the murder of Abraham Lincoln?

One thing I was annoyed about this film, along with several other Disney films, is that the MPAA are afraid to rate Disney movies a PG-13 rating. Yes, National Treasure 2 could've been a very fun popcorn movie, and it is, but the film is filled with too many immature jokes to make kids laugh. The Pirates film can't be Disney's only PG-13 films.

Apart from that, I found this film pretty entertaining. When I started to watch this, I was dreading it. The actors TRY to be funny that they aren't. I was thinking, "What are they doing here? Seriously." I didn't try to enjoy it like the first movie. I was thinking about the wasted talents from the cast but then it grew on me. I started to "go along with the ride" and enjoyed it after about the 30 minute mark.

No, I wouldn't say it was as entertaining as the first and in my opinion, the first film is one of the best fun and energetic adventure films I've ever seen. Along with the first, this film did a great job not boring you for about just 2 hours long. This film will keep you entertained.

Everyone in here seem to have a pretty good time making this film, along with having a good time acting on screen, including a newbie, Hellen Mirren. However, I really do not like the clichéd use of having divorced couples in a sequel film after the protagonist falls in love with his/her lover in the first.

Anyway, this film is bigger but not necessarily better than the first film. The action and visuals are better, I must say. Although it feels like the first movie all over again (you can't help but sense a deja vu that is happening while watching this film), this film does a well job keeping you entertained from beginning to end.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Entertaining Sequel of National Treasure
fatemaster200322 December 2007
So, here I am, Astonished at how amazing Jerry managed to direct an amazing movie like this one; how Nicholas Cage, Diane Kruger, Bartha, Voight, and Harris, act this one out, into a somehow very terrific movie, funny but tense, and yet, very entertaining, just like the first one.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets, talk about how Ben Gates try to prove that his ancestor's (Thomas Gates), is not the mastermind behind Lincoln's assassination.

And just like the first one, it's still filled with laughable, serious, and patriotic sense. Very very enjoyable.

Despite the fact, whether this book exist or not, it's still a very interesting thing to think about. But, don't overdo the thinking, since that can ruin the fun in this movie, and make you guys (the thinker) to question the purpose and whether it's the truth or not. And the next step would be, "It's the most ridiculous movie I've ever seen. Nothing makes sense" thought, and that will definitely ruin your excitement bout this movie, and hence, make your rating against this movie, goes down. Why bother about something that we don't know if it really exist or not, and even if it does exist, what business do you have with it? Hope my point is as clear as crystal clear.

So, here is my suggestion. Just enjoy the movie. Don't over think about whether it's the truth or not. Just watch how Ben solve the puzzle, and how they mastermind things, and along the way, laugh at Riley's "pure thought". You'll find it much more interesting that way than if you try to think too hard.

I personally rate this movie 10/10.
24 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
not quite as exciting as the original film
disdressed123 April 2011
while i found this film to be very good,i didn't think it was quite as good as the original.the film follows the same formula as the original,but takes longer to get going found it a bit slow going-in some parts,and it wasn't quite as exciting.the first film was thrilling from almost start too finish.whereas this film wasn't. get me wrong.there are still some thrilling moments,just not as many as as i had hoped or expected.plus,there were a few absurd moments even in the context of the film.still,it is entertaining and worth watching.this time around,Ed Harris joins the cast as does Helen Mirren who adds some class to the film.for me,National Treasure: Book of Secrets is a 7/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bland, mass-produced rubbish that nobody seems to have put any heart into making
bob the moo17 February 2008
Normally I would write a plot summary before I review a film - it helps introduce the film in case anyone is reading but mostly I do it because it helps me focus my mind on what I have just seen. However to summarise National Treasure 2 it is probably easiest just to take two dice and for one die assign each number the name of a person in history (Queen Victoria, Nixon, Custer), then for the other assign an object (a table, the Empire State Building, a book). Now simply roll the two dice and make notes of the combinations - Custer's rifle, the President's watch, the Queen's bedroom etc etc. After a couple of rolls you will have as much of a story as this film and indeed may have produced a more interesting one.

If you haven't got it yet, I thought the plot was utter nonsense that seemed to have had scenarios imagined up and then threaded together with the barest or logic (or none in many cases). Some of the scenes where Cage works out the clues had me laughing and one imagines that the writers made more use of shoe-horns than they did pens and paper. My personal favourite lack of logical is where a major clue is thrown out a car window to stop the bad guys chasing them and all our heroes have to look at is a photo taken of the clue by a speed camera that they drive past. What? Weirdly though, the plot is not the sole problem with the film and indeed it could have been covered for if everything else had worked in regards delivery. As it is though, it seems that there is no heart or energy in the film and that churning out another product to appease the Disney shareholders was top of the reasons for making it. This shows in every regard. It shows in the very bland "look" to the film. It is clear that lots of money has been spent on the sets and general design of the film but yet none of it feels like more than a set and certainly none of it really convinces as the real thing. This feel continues into the action sequences which again are bland. If the film had genuinely had excitement or thrills then the plot holes become less important but the rubbish action just leaves everything sitting out there exposed to the cold light of day. A gutless car chase through London only serves to highlight how awesome all those Bourne chases were and, by return, how pathetic this one is.

And then we have the incidental music, which tends to be one of two type - both equally misjudged and annoying. The first is the "earnest swelling sense of importance" music that accompanies any discussion of the treasure-hunt, family ancestors or patriotism. It invites you to think that what you are watching is important, which made me think that the composer dialled it in because he cannot have watched this and thought this approach would work with this material. The other type is the "jaunty, quirky, isn't-this-comical" music that fills the rest of the film. This music invites you to be amused but again it only manages to highlight just how unfunny and clunky all the "lighter" moments are.

The cast list surprised me because if you simply read out the names of those involved I would not have guessed that they were all have been key people in a film this poor. I suppose in a way it is like the rest of the film - clearly there has been money spent but no actual heart or effort is to be found. Cage demonstrates no range or indication that he cares about the material and he makes for a dull hero; his performance is the same when jumping from a crumbling platform and when giving a lecture - it is sad to see someone care so little about what they are doing. Bartha is a weak comic sidekick but at least he appears to be trying. Kruger is as pretty as she is pointless and generally just seemed to be in the way. Harris has a good presence and at least brings a bit of menace to the film while managing to hide his embarrassment, but this is below him and he knows it. Voight is rubbish and Mirren should genuinely be ashamed by a weak performance in a role she took simply to cash in on Oscar and make some good money. Keitel I assume was a bigger character in the first film because other than that there appears to be no reason for him smirking his way around the edges.

Overall then, this is a lot of nonsense but, more telling, it is bland and disinterested in the viewer. The plot holes and total lack of logic do treat the viewer with contempt but this could have been covered if I had even once been engaged or enthralled by the film. As it was though it never feels like a film made for any other reason than making money. The cast don't seem to care, the direction is flat, the action is poor and the pace is poor. The fact that it is two hours long only makes it worse as it does not even have the good grace to be short. It is rare I hate a film but I found this poor to the point of being insulting because it is not like it tries but just misfires but rather than it is poor simply because it could not be bothered to even try.
18 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Daft but fun
TheLittleSongbird17 November 2009
I liked this sequel. I do need to re watch the predecessor, but from my memory I remember the first film being a tad better. National Treasure:Book of Secrets does have its problems, primarily the daft and sometimes contrived plot, the sometimes weak script(despite three or four hilarious scenes) and the climax does take a tad too long. Despite all this, the film is still a lot of fun, thanks to some awesome chase scenes, the great special effects and the fun performances of Nicolas Cage, Helen Mirren and Jon Voight. Plus there are some funny jokes and scenes, and the music is brilliant. And the clues are nice and complex. I will say me and my whole family liked this film, we all felt it is daft and silly but for a family film it does have a sense of fun.

Overall, don't expect a masterpiece. Expect a fun film, that is daft too. That way, you will enjoy National Treasure:Book of Secrets. 7/10 Bethany Cox
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Sir, please dismount the banister"
Smells_Like_Cheese26 May 2008
A couple years ago I saw that little movie we called National Treasure, sorta like the new Indiana Jones wanna-be, I didn't get into the film. But the sequel National Treasure: Book of Secrets came last year and I had again no interest in seeing the movie, but my mom bought the film and wanted to watch it together, so I figured to just sit through it, it actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting. But I actually not only thought it wasn't bad, it was actually a really good movie, I was impressed. I think the reason why I disliked the first National Treasure was due to the fact that it was too deep with history in order for it to be a family film and could be confusing at times. But National Treasure: Book of Secrets explains itself well and has more exciting action sequences and just a great story.

Ben Gates is back, this time his life isn't looking so good, his girlfriend, Abigal, threw him out, his friend, Riley isn't the best seller on his new book, then his great great grandfather is accused of helping John Wilkes Booth kill President Lincoln. But Ben is determined to clear the family name, but Mitch Wilkinson wants his family name to remain sacred and plans to drag Ben's family down and claim all the fortune for himself.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets is an exciting adventure film, one of the better I've seen in a while. Nicolas Cage is my only little complaint, now I love this actor, he was great throughout the film, but when he had his little "joke" putting his arm into the rock where everyone thinks it's a trap and he kids them with it, for some reason this guy cannot do comedy. I know that's a silly complaint, but sometimes he just seems so out of place in a film, especially with his recent movies. But National Treasure: Book of Secrets otherwise is a decent family film that is enjoyable and exciting, I'd recommend it if you're looking for a fun film.

7/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Really good sequel
masonsaul22 July 2019
Due to it's plot being very similar to the first National Treasure, it isn't as good as the first but National Treasure: Book of Secrets is still a really good sequel. It's consistently funny with plenty of action. Nicolas Cage, Jon Voight, Diane Kruger and Justin Bartha once again give great performances and newcomers Ed Harris and Helen Mirren are also really good. Jon Turtetaub's direction is great and the film is well paced and also has a great score by Trevor Rabin.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than the first one
enelson-0748129 April 2022
You can tell that they weren't expecting the first one to be a hit. So then they stepped up their game on the second one when it was. Again, barely any character development and not a super strong plot, but still entertaining and fun. Definitely worth the watch as well.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
..I want my money back!
osborne_graham17 February 2008
What the heck! I have seen better written episodes of Hercules. It was like a 10 year old's homework task. Just so much about this film was appalling: the jokes, the plot, the story, the fact that the car chase scene was up and down the same short road in Cheapside in London, the way it goes on and on and on about 'the American way'. I like the way that it is listed as English/French language despite the only french being that a french policeman said one line in French before the Nicholas Cage reeled off the entire details of the clue they just found and the next part of their secret search to the policeman they had just met right before the policeman ordered a taxi to take him to the airport... oh, i could keep going just to get it all off my chest but I won't - If I was able to give minus points for a film i would have done with National Treasure 2. If you have not yet watched this film I am truly envious.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It serves its purpose well enough.
Boba_Fett11385 July 2008
I've seen the first movie "National Treasure" but I basically remember nothing about at it, so it really didn't made a lasting impression. I'm sure that in a couple of months from now I will have forgotten all about this movie as well, since its entertaining and all but also all pretty forgettable.

The movie serves its purpose to entertain and you'll probably won't be bored while watching this movie but the movie also really isn't anything to spectacular. Both 'National Treasure' movies were expense blockbuster, of well over $100.000.000 (this movie actually cost about $130,000,000), which sort of makes me wonder what all that money gets spend on these days. 10 years ago every $100.000.000 would had easily been amongst the top 10 of most expensive movies ever made, now days $100.000.000 will only give you movies such as "National Treasure: Book of Secrets". It really doesn't look or feel as an over $100.000.000 production.

For that amount of money some more fireworks could be expected. Basically "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" doesn't feature anything big or exceptional, which we haven't seen in any other movies before. The first movie was basically more or less a simpler version of "The Da Vinci Code", while this movie tends to lean more toward the Indiana Jones movies, with a sniff of James Bond to it. So seriously nothing too original or new here, which is of course mostly due to the movie its script and storytelling.

The script is simple, though yet of course not very likely. Sure, it's fun to treasure hunt and look for clues all over the world, on famous landmarks but not when basically every 5 minutes the movie is set at a different location (probaly also partly explains the movie its high budget) and we're looking for a new and different clue. This is just the kind of storytelling that does not ever work out very well. Basically the movie tries to achieve too much and a too short amount of time.

But no, I wouldn't call this movie horrible or anything. It's still professionally made, though not with a lot of imagination. Perhaps it's time for Jon Turteltaub to pass on the directing honers to a new and different director for the third movie of the series, which is currently in its early production stages. It also obviously wouldn't hurt to hunt down a better script this time. But oh well, I at least I wasn't bored while watching this movie and therefor I can't really regard this movie as a weak one, since it obviously served its purpose to bring entertainment.

Nicolas Cage seems to enjoy his role in these movies, which shows on the screen and he is well cast in his role. His acting is right for the part, though probably not a lot of people will agree with this, or at least they won't admit that they do. Most of the characters and actors from the first movie return again in this one (Justin Bartha, Diane Kruger, Jon Voight), which is probably due to the fun it must be to make these sort of movies or perhaps just because of the fat paychecks. It also explains why actors such as Helen Mirren, Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel appeared in this sequel. They are just not the type of actors to normally appear in a big summer blockbuster. Nevertheless they of course are a welcome addition, though their characters aren't the most interesting ones and some roles even feel a bit redundant for the overall movie.

Nothing too remarkable, just some decent entertainment.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun but way too busy
ctomvelu15 July 2009
If you thought the first NT movie left you gasping for aid, wait until you get a load of the followup, which takes our intrepid trio of treasure hunters (Cage, Kruger and Bartha) all over the map, including to England, D.C. and whichever Dakota Mount Rushmore is in. This time, they are seeking clues to restore the tarnished name of a forbear (don't ask). This involves tracking down a lost city of gold, of all things. Hey, it's a kid's movie! The plot rushes from here to there, a little too much so, and there are plot holes as big as the Grand Canyon. Also, Cage seems a bit long in the tooth for such nonsense. But hey, it's a kid's movie! The only question is, will a kid be willing to sit through the whole thing? The director and writers take no chances, by the way, and give us much the same death-defying finale as that in the first movie. Hey! It's a kid's movie! Keep telling yourself that. Helen Mirren plays cage's mom and Bruce Greenwood is the president, and they give this silly but likable film some badly needed dignity.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Much of the same, but a decent sequel nonetheless!
Even though the first National Treasure wasn't a masterpiece, it had some great visuals, a great cast, and perfect special effects helped by Trevor Rabin's great music score. So, when I saw this sequel, I wasn't expecting it to be an improvement over the first, but can at least be enjoyable and my wish came true at last.

I'll admit that the story, just like the original's, is predictable with a weakest script, an even longer climax compared to the first, and the villain not being big enough throughout the film, but those flaws didn't matter as it had some redeeming qualities the first National Treasure had.

The cinematography is magnificent and the cast is great with some great performances from Nicolas Cage, Diane Kruger, Jon Voight, Helen Mirren, and Ed Harris. The visuals are fantastic, the special effects are great and the music from Trevor Rabin is once again pretty good. I know it sounds crazy, but I found the history to be very interesting despite it's predictable plot and there are some hilarious jokes during the film that got me some laughs and chuckles.

Overall, not as great as the original was, but a very decent sequel that is worth watching. I heard that a third National Treasure film is coming next year if there is one and I hope to see it soon.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Another ripping yarn
stockjg11 June 2009
If you liked the first one then heres more of the same. A fast moving, simple adventure story with plenty of action, twists and turns. It manages to out-do the first movie with the major "kidnapping". Nicholas cage isn't my favorite actor as I believe he is often miscast as a serious hero. This is more his style as a tongue in cheek hero. good support from Angelina Jolie's dad and Helen Mirren. I enjoyed the purported links to factual evidence as in the links to civil war heroes and villains, the twin desks, one at buck house and the other in the oval office. I never knew there were in fact three Eiffel towers(if it is indeed the case). A sit back and enjoy the ride movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed