National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

novy.

Posted to Media on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Spoiler alert, but trust me, it won't make much difference to your enjoyment of, or disgust with, this film.

North America's favourite film for second week running was National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Reviews mostly got it right: it moves quickly, doesn't linger anywhere, and doesn't make much sense. Going to movies almost always requires suspending disbelief, but this movie takes that principle to new heights. China Daily identified its genre as action-fantasy and was appalled by all those unbelievable chase scenes and utterly ridiculous plot twists, calling it "'Da Vinci Code' on steroids crossed... with American History Trivial Pursuit". But it was still unwillingly charmed by "virtually the same movie with new locations". So if you liked its predecessor, you'll end up grudgingly liking this one also even if you hate yourself for paying to get in.

"[M]ore a blueprint for stunts than a coherent tale, ... [t]his one centers on the assassination of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. ... The story requires Ben and company to jet to Paris to examine a Statue of Liberty replica in the Luxembourg Gardens, break into Buckingham Palace, then the White House Oval Office, kidnap the president (Bruce Greenwood), ransack the Library of Congress and finally discover an American Indian archeological site implausibly located under Mount Rushmore." Sounds ludicrous? You have no idea. Character development issues, like how relations between Ben's mom and dad evolve or how nominal villain Mitch Wilkinson repeatedly saves everyone's life or how Bruce Greenwood reacts to being kidnapped, make plot developments seem almost natural. Hackneyed wisdom about male-female relationships (men like breasts, women like money) seems to flow like mighty rivers.

But it was fun. And I ate all my popcorn. And you can take kids without embarrassment, if you have any. All was well that ended well. Can you look forward to National Treasure 3? Since "Book of Secrets" looks set to make more money than National Treasure 1, it seems as certain as tomorrow's sunrise. After all, you don't see villain Mitch Wilkinson actually die, and you never find out what was on "Page 47." Maybe next time, screenwriters will give it more thought.

< 2008: The New Hotness

Trees and Things Deathpool Wrapup >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by novy, edited by 1fastdog, National Treasure: Book Of Secrets, movie, review, Nicholas Cage, Jon Voight (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 12 comments (1 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

1	Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review] port1080. Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:02:09 AM EST 5.00 (brilliant)

I haven't seen the second one yet (now that we have a big HDTV, may wait until it comes out on DVD and save a few bucks), but my wife and I saw the first one and loved its cheesy awfulness. There is a definite market for these cheesy action-adventure treasure hunting movies. The Indiana Jones trilogy proved it, the two Mummy movies (which were, in my opinion, better than the Jones trilogy) further supported it, and National Treasure is now just picking up that mantel.

If you're watching either National Treasure at home (or in a place with liberal liquor laws and theatres that allow such things), you can make a wonderful drinking game. Any time one of the actors utters a "serious" line that's so bad you want to laugh, drink. This is additive, of course, because the more you drink, the more you want to laugh at every bad line. If all goes well, but the end of the movie you're one step over comatose. It's lovely stuff.

3 1	Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review] permazorch. Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:46:06 PM EST 5.00 (astute)

The Indiana Jones trilogy proved it, the two Mummy movies (which were, in my opinion, better than the Jones trilogy)
What. In. The. Hell?!!

Up until this moment I had a modicum for respect for you, port1080. Now, my entire universe is shattered. How any human can think for a nanosecond that either Mummy movie (or Romancing the Stone, or hell, just about any adventure movie yet made) is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark is pure insanity.

You disturb me, sir/madam/entity!

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

9 3	Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review] rexdart. Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM EST none

You beat me to the punch, permazorch. Raiders had the audacity to slightly twist (relative to most of Hollywood) history to suite its terms.

And frankly, when they found Benjamin Franklin's super-duper glasses in the first NT, I wanted to scream really, really loudly. And not in a happy go-lucky sort of way.

10 9	Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review] novy. Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:29:21 PM EST none

Both National Treasure movies twist history so hard you'd think you were watching alternate universe or time travel sci-fi movies instead of treasure-hunt movies.

2	I have a copy of the first one. MayorBob. Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST 5.00 (astute)

It was an above average action flick. My recommendation, if have to see one entire series of action flicks, make it the Bourne series.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

4 2	Re: I have a copy of the first one. novy. Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST none

National Treasure has less fighting and less killing, and cuter and less doomed love interests. If you find killings and ill-fated love disturbing, or have children or spouses who do, National Treasure may be better selection even though "Bourne" movies have faster pace and much better and more believable plots.

5 2	Re: I have a copy of the first one. novy. Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST none

Lest my remarks be misunderstood, "Bourne" series was utterly brilliant, well-written, movingly-acted, and single-handedly redefined spy movies, while first National Treasure was fun but nothing special and second was almost laughably horrible carbon copy of first. "National Treasure" series doesn't deserve to be mentioned in same sentence with "Bourne" series.

7	Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review] gonzocanuck. Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:47:42 AM EST 4.00 (funny)

Hee...I love Romancing the Stone, I don't know why I never get tired of watching it. Maybe it's to remember how Michael Douglas used to look like before the awful plastic surgery :-) I liked The Mummy series slightly better than Indy, because the heroine was a librarian :-)

12 7	Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review] Lou. Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST none

I liked RTS a lot too...especially the part where Douglas and Turner slide down the waterfall and Douglas winds up taking a faceplant in Turner's lap. Of course, I could have just been projecting.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

6	Only 2? Minos. Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST 3.00 (astute)

They've been showing previews of this one for so long that when I heard this was in theaters, I thought it was the 3rd in the series by now.

8 6	Re: Only 2? novy. Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST none

Not to worry, when they make National Treasure 3, it will be exactly like National Treasure 2.

Want to know what was on "Page 47"? It was coded story about Ponce de Leon's Fountain of Youth in Florida. Mitch Wilkinson needs to find it because his wife has terminal cancer, and President wants to find it because he has already aged 20 years while in office. First clue to location of Fountain got hidden on back of door leading out of City of Gold, which explains why Wilkinson ended up staying behind and "saving" everyone else, so that he could be only one to see clue. Second clue was on sunken ship in Caribbean found by Ben Gates and his extended family after they decided to found maritime treasure hunting business to avoid inter-movie boredom and consequent family disintegration. At end of third movie, Helen Mirren becomes hot again.

11	Historical screw up. TonedEff. Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:32:34 PM EST none

I know you're not supposed to put much stock in historical accuracy when you're talking Hollywood blockbusters, but this still leaves me scratching my head. Throughout the movie the Declaration of Independence is described as signed on the Fourth of July, 1776. BZZZZZTT, wrong answer. In fact, it was only adopted on that day. It wasn't signed until the next month when it was engrossed on parchment. The copy signed on July 4th was a rough copy and it was only signed by John Hancock.

This story: 12 comments (1 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

novy.

Posted to Media on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

port1080.

Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:02:09 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

1

Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

permazorch.

Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:46:06 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

3

Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

rexdart.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM EST

9

Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

novy.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:29:21 PM EST

I have a copy of the first one.

MayorBob.

Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

2

Re: I have a copy of the first one.

novy.

Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST

2

Re: I have a copy of the first one.

novy.

Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST

Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

gonzocanuck.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:47:42 AM EST

4.00 (funny)

7

Re: National Treaure 2: Lame Fun [Review]

Lou.

Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST

Only 2?

Minos.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST

3.00 (astute)

6

Re: Only 2?

novy.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST

Historical screw up.

TonedEff.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:32:34 PM EST