I'm with billybob, I had no less fun with the second than I did the first. They're solid disposible popcorn films.

remember, this is far from actual history, it's Hollywood people trying to turn history into the most entertaining twisted story possible

I tend to agree with this. I went into the movie not asking for a deep thought provoking movie that raised questions about society, I just wanted to have some popcorn fun. And the movie certainly delivered. Sure there could have been some areas that could have been touched up, but overall it was a good way to spend 2 hours. The movie has a very similar layout to the first one. I even noticed some of the same exact camera sequences show up, for example when the city of gold is is finally revealed, the camera freezes on the faces of the three heroes and then shows the city of gold. I have to take points off for having a little bit of a been there done that type of feel. But at the same time I thought the locations to be more interesting. Some may disagree but I think pre-Columbian American history to be more interesting to the whole free Mason story. But then again I love pre-Columbian history. The humor was decent. Biggest complaint for me was the villan. Ed Harris did a decent job with what he had, but the villain became too sympathetic near the end for me. Sean Bean stole just about every scene he was in the original, Ed Harris not so much.

National Treasure: B+
National Treasure 2: B

far superior to the first but i am a huge fan of ed harris so that probably helped. dumb popcorn fun.

B.

My favorite kind of films are archeotype fun entertainment films such as the three franchises in my name and Pirates, and this has the ability to be one of those types of films, but as theGun said, it just wasn't too fun. In the end I did enjoy myself however.

B/B+

It's pretty much the first movie all over again, but the first movie was fun, so I didn't really mind. However, it feels about 20 minutes too long and would've been on par with the first film (B+) if they had trimmed some of the film (I imagine that they could have easily eliminated one of the mini-puzzles from the film to do this).

Still, it's a pretty decent movie, though instantly forgettable. B

Thank the flying spaghetti monster. Finally, honest critiquing of a crappy film.

I'm compelled to ask how the hell did the city of gold (the heart of the Olmec civilization) end up in South Dakota?

Finding the City of Gold cleared the great grandfather by:

Despite him being the "architect" behind the Lincoln assassination, he stopped the Confederates from finding the City of Gold which would have kept the US divided and weak.

I liked it. I found it very interesting, not quite as fun as the first, but still good.

8.7/10 B+

Not a bad little timewaster. Lots of busy, shiny stuff to keep ya distracted from the minimal story. Nicolas Cage mere prescence elevates this kind of shit. It's the opposite of Beowulf - - here they use real actors to make a cartoon...

3 out of 5.




(BTW: That Goofy cartoon before the movie (How To Hook Up Your Home Theatre) was the best short Disney cartoon I've seen in decades - - it actually had relevant humor that was funny!)

Who here thought the animated short was actually better than the film?

Well it made me laugh more, but outside Riley, these movies aren't supposed to make you laugh much. I would rather watch NT2 again than that short...but I'd laugh more watching the short than NT2.

The first was a guilty pleasure, but this one just had too many problems that made me wonder what the scriptwriter was thinking. Too many "WTF" moments.

What was Ed Harris about? What was his motivation? Clearing his family name? By shooting at other people and trying to kill them? Oh yeah, that'll work. WTF?

What the hell were Mayans doing in South Dakota? What, did they take the gold from Mexico and travel all the way up into the area run by American indians so they could create a city there underground? WTF?

Why did the President, who apparently wanted Cage to find the treasure by giving him the info needed to get the book, then tell the FBI in order to stop him from doing that same thing? WTF?

Why didn't the police search for Cage all along after that huge car chase at the start where he allowed his picture to be taken by the police? It's not like he was in hiding! Couldn't they find him? WTF?

How did this clear the Gates name anyway? He wanted to help the confederates by killing Lincoln but he didn't want to help the confederates by telling them where the treasure was? WTF?

If President Coolidge knew to build Mt. Rushmore where it was in order to cover up the signs leading to the treasure, why didn't he just have people look for the treasure? What possible reason could the US, about to be hit by a despression, not want the gold? WTF?

Now, don't get me wrong -- I can sit back and enjoy the ride in action films, but I don't see why I should have to pretend to be stupid in order to enjoy them. There is such a thing as suspension of disbelief of course, but within the film's own world, there should be consistency and logic for the story to work.

Hmm, let's see...

Preposterous storyline? Check.
Horrendous history? Check.
Outlandish action? Check.
Humor thrown in for good measure? Check.

Like its predecessor, National Treasure: Book of Secrets is solid escapist fun. I didn't enjoy this one as much as the first film, but I still found it to be a lot of fun, even in spite of a slow start and weak ending. It definitely requires large suspension of disbelief, and when the movie is as outlandishly fun as this one, I don't find that suspension to be hard to do. It served well as a breath of fresh, entertaining fun against the deeper, more intellectual (and admittedly, superior) lineup of films I've been watching lately.

Grade: B

I like my stupid with a bit more fun please. Jerry, just because your past few movies haven't had explosions or bad guys getting impaled doesn't mean they're any better than they used to be. Ever since you and Michael Bay got divorced, he's been making some fun eye candy and you've relegated yourself to CSI and shitty Disney action movies.

Good call Bradley for pointing out that Nicolas Cage elevates this shit. For a movie with such an improbably good cast, he's the only one who seems like he's having a good time and/or isn't brain dead. (Dear Jon Voight: I don't know if you had a stroke or what, but you've turned into a truly awful actor.)

Where is the redeeming humor I keep reading about? Justin Bartha was funnier as the retarded kid in Gigli, he felt much more useless and annoying this time around. Other than him and Cage, who did admittedly have one great moment making a scene in Britain, all the "witty" lines sounded like something a sarcastic fourth grader would spew.

Jon Turteltaub may be the worst director ever taken under the wing of Bruckheimer - and that's quite a feat.

I enjoyed it. It's not quite as good as the first but I wasn't expecting it to be. A lot of the charm and humor is missing. I'm not sure if it was Bartha or the screenplay, but it seemed like all of his jokes died. As a matter of fact the biggest laughs in the film came from Nic Cage. Cage's performance in the argument scene at Buckingham Palace was simply priceless. But, even though those two elements are somewhat missing, I was entertained.

B

Thank you, Groucho. I just got back from this and you saved me the time and effort of needing to type out all that nonsense you so excellently detailed above. How fucking dumb is this script?

That bit with the president sending Nic Cage off and telling the FBI where he was was the worst. Why didn't he just say the door had closed to begin with? Oh, right, because the screenwriters don't know how to create or sustain dramatic conflict. Infuriating, that was.

I think these screenwriters ("The Wibberlys"? Are you joking?) are truly stupid.

Its not better than the original thats for sure. A little boring at times and quite dumb but overall its enjoyable.

B-

This is just an ever downward spiraling piece of shit, and it is far worse than the first one, which I hated for its poor acting, bad dialogue, outright absurdity and mocking of history. This latest incarnation was poorly concieved and brimming with ineptitude right from the very beginning, in other words more of the same only worse. You could tell from opening sequence that this was written and directed by a couple of brain dead retarded monkeys high on pcp and angel dust (you ever see what that stuff does to children?*) This film had so many improbable, impossible and wtf moments that it made it really hard to suspend disbelief for even one second, let alone for 2 1/2hrs. Somebody mentioned that it looked as if Cage was the only one having fun in this film and they're right he was, or maybe its his bad toupee?. He has made so many crappy films in the last 4-5 years they've probably just become a big blur to him and he see's them only as a paycheck, a big fat honkin' paycheck to boot.

Its a shame people actually pay good money to see crap like this, thus ensuring more crap like this gets made. Its a sad and vicious circle.

Grade
F

* references Frank Oz as the booking cop in Trading Places

I got what I went in for. Love Riley. He's cute. Fun story. Can't wait for the third!! B+

Got Lost on some parts for I have LittLe knowLedge on U.S. history and stuff but that didn't affect me from enjoying the fiLm at aLL with the heLp of Nic Cage/Justin Bartha/Jon Voight jokes and Diane Kruger. The first one which feLt more originaL was better, but it stiLL proved to be very entertaining aLthroughout by not taking itseLf too seriousLy.

B+

When the first was released, I thought it looked awful and passed on it theatrically. It seemed so cheesy and I wasn't (and still am not) a fan of Nicolas Cage. However, it ended up surprising me and was quite entertaining and fun throughout. This is basically more of the same. It's nothing great, but a fun blockbuster that benefits from a strong cast and clever premise. I enjoyed it. B

6/10 - > C

I liked it just as much as the first one. Maybe a little more. The villains were better in the first one, but the adventure was better here.

Loved it. It was nearly as much fun as the first one. A-

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this. Yes the plot's preposterous, and yes I rolled my eyes at a lot of it, but I was never bored. Most of the time, I was even pretty damn well entertained.

It's rare I find myself this at odds with the general consensus on a film. For example, most people thought the London car chase was boring, I thought it was one of the most thrilling I'd seen in ages. Maybe my opinion of the film will change on multiple viewiings, but right now it's the most fun I've had in a cinema in some time.

C'est la vie.

B+

Where the heck was the plod thou??? Seriously shoddy on their part

I'm with you on how much this film surprised me thou. Its nothing special but the time pasts quickly and I got a kick out of some of the silly clues and puzzles, plus Helen Mirren looks indecently good for a woman of her age.