While I was in the midst of one of "my British mystery series" from Netflix, Zach picked up this one from the library. We both liked the first one, so figured we'd give National Treasure: Book of Secrets (National Treasure 2) a try.
Plot: Well, like the first one, a group of treasure hunters are following clues hidden in historical places, figures, documents, etc. in order to track down a historical treasure. In this case, the treasure will also clear the name of an ancestor of Ben Gates's (Nicholas Cage's character, the hero). The ancestor (great-grandfather or some such) has been implicated in the Lincoln assassination, and finding this treasure will clear his name, showing he was really a hero in the Civil War instead.
I did like the first one - Indiana Jones, with a US History focus, instead of medieval Christianity. I was disappointed with the second. Not that it was horrible, but definitely not as good as the first.
The writing was good. The characters all return from the first, plus Helen Mirren appears as Ben Gates's mother. The writers were smart enough to keep the playful banter from the first movie. That's really the reason why I liked it better than the new IJ (for comparing sequels to historical action movies). George Lucas just hasn't written great dialogue in his sequels recently (Star Wars Ep 1, anyone? Jar Jar Binks... 'nuff said).
The action scenes were well done, but a little repetitive. It seemed sometimes that they were reusing gimmicks from the first NT (like lighting the oil in the cave at the end of the movie). The casting was decent. I liked most of the actor choices, but I just am not a big Nicholas Cage fan. Just me I suppose.
For the downside, the movie seemed very rushed, even though it was over 2 hours long. Thinking about it, it just seemed like the action scenes were taking more time than figuring out the clues. In the first one, they seemed to take a little longer to figure out where/what the clues were, then had the action scenes. In this one, it seemed more like 5 minutes to find and decipher the clue, then 15 for the action. Gave it an odd pacing.
Biggest frustration, VERY fast and loose with history. And as soon as you saw it, it just became more and more irritating. Diary from 1865 referring to a statue that wasn't built for another 15 years, which then referred to desks which weren't built for another 2 years after that. And all of it leading up to a civilization from Central America (reported in Florida at one point in the movie) which is somehow hidden behind Mt Rushmore. Summary: the whole premise of the movie is impossible (more than the standard suspending-disbelief in an action movie). There's more here. I'm not counting this all as a spoiler, as seriously, how many people would consider these plot twists? You're not watching these movies for the deep plot, after all :) I just find it irritating that a movie which focuses so much on obscure history and trivia wouldn't use possible historical connections, instead forcing the connections. As if there aren't enough obscure historical tid-bits floating around to create an interesting movie!
Oh, and best line :
Abigail (referring to using 'so' as she talks, in an overall men-women-relationship talk):
"Well, not all the time. Sometimes it can mean something good or something bad. It's kind of like a puzzle. And you're very good at puzzles."
Got an outright guffaw from Zach, along with an "It's not that easy, buddy!"
Overall: 3 of 5. Better than the new Indiana Jones movie, as far as adventure sequels go, but definitely not a classic. Spend your time watching the first one instead.
I did like the first one - Indiana Jones, with a US History focus, instead of medieval Christianity. I was disappointed with the second. Not that it was horrible, but definitely not as good as the first.
The writing was good. The characters all return from the first, plus Helen Mirren appears as Ben Gates's mother. The writers were smart enough to keep the playful banter from the first movie. That's really the reason why I liked it better than the new IJ (for comparing sequels to historical action movies). George Lucas just hasn't written great dialogue in his sequels recently (Star Wars Ep 1, anyone? Jar Jar Binks... 'nuff said).
The action scenes were well done, but a little repetitive. It seemed sometimes that they were reusing gimmicks from the first NT (like lighting the oil in the cave at the end of the movie). The casting was decent. I liked most of the actor choices, but I just am not a big Nicholas Cage fan. Just me I suppose.
For the downside, the movie seemed very rushed, even though it was over 2 hours long. Thinking about it, it just seemed like the action scenes were taking more time than figuring out the clues. In the first one, they seemed to take a little longer to figure out where/what the clues were, then had the action scenes. In this one, it seemed more like 5 minutes to find and decipher the clue, then 15 for the action. Gave it an odd pacing.
Biggest frustration, VERY fast and loose with history. And as soon as you saw it, it just became more and more irritating. Diary from 1865 referring to a statue that wasn't built for another 15 years, which then referred to desks which weren't built for another 2 years after that. And all of it leading up to a civilization from Central America (reported in Florida at one point in the movie) which is somehow hidden behind Mt Rushmore. Summary: the whole premise of the movie is impossible (more than the standard suspending-disbelief in an action movie). There's more here. I'm not counting this all as a spoiler, as seriously, how many people would consider these plot twists? You're not watching these movies for the deep plot, after all :) I just find it irritating that a movie which focuses so much on obscure history and trivia wouldn't use possible historical connections, instead forcing the connections. As if there aren't enough obscure historical tid-bits floating around to create an interesting movie!
Oh, and best line :
Abigail (referring to using 'so' as she talks, in an overall men-women-relationship talk):
"Well, not all the time. Sometimes it can mean something good or something bad. It's kind of like a puzzle. And you're very good at puzzles."
Got an outright guffaw from Zach, along with an "It's not that easy, buddy!"
Overall: 3 of 5. Better than the new Indiana Jones movie, as far as adventure sequels go, but definitely not a classic. Spend your time watching the first one instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment