Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS Discussion Thread


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 of 23 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,785 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted December 21 2007 - 01:29 PM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "National Treasure: Book of Secrets". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" should be posted to the http://www.hometheat....ml#post3290839.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#2 of 23 OFFLINE   johnbr

johnbr

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 148 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted December 22 2007 - 12:17 PM

I thought that this movie was great.If you liked the first you will like this one.The goofy cartoon on stating up your hometheater was also great fun.

#3 of 23 OFFLINE   Adam Sanchez

Adam Sanchez

    Supporting Actor



  • 908 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 1999

Posted December 22 2007 - 08:22 PM

Me and the wife really enjoyed it too, a fun 2 hours at the movies. Also thought the Goofy short was surprisingly funny. Looking at the animators in the credits had some of Disney's big named animators. Probably giving them some practice. Posted Image

Did anyone else's movie have the new WALL-E Trailer that begins with him repairing the Pixar logo? Simply charming. Posted Image

#4 of 23 OFFLINE   Jason Harbaugh

Jason Harbaugh

    Screenwriter



  • 2,968 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2001

Posted December 22 2007 - 08:32 PM

Big fan of the first one, and also enjoyed the second just as much. It also looks like page 47 is going to be the plot of the third movie.

The Goofy short was really funny. It took awhile for the audience to get into it though. Almost like they were confused as to why this was being shown. There was an audible *gasp* when he trimmed all the wires with the chainsaw though. I guess they were fully into it by then. Posted Image

#5 of 23 OFFLINE   Adam Sanchez

Adam Sanchez

    Supporting Actor



  • 908 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 1999

Posted December 22 2007 - 08:47 PM

Oh yeah I almost forgot about the Page 47 thing. Ugh. I hate being left hanging. Like the Rabbit's Foot in MI:3. There is going to be a third National Treasure or were you kidding?

#6 of 23 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 38,067 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted December 23 2007 - 01:53 AM

When they made mention of page 47, I was thinking of Rambaldi from the TV show "Alias". It's definitely the tease for a 3rd installment of National Treasure, no way it doesn't get made considering NT2 will make a ton of money.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#7 of 23 OFFLINE   Russell B

Russell B

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 116 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 06 1999

Posted December 23 2007 - 06:17 AM

ROTTEN TOMATOES: Talks Begin for National Treasure 3

#8 of 23 OFFLINE   Chris Atkins

Chris Atkins

    Producer



  • 3,887 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002

Posted December 25 2007 - 11:40 AM

I'll join the chorus by saying that if you liked the first one, you will like this one too. Not quite as good as the first, though. If they had left out some of the obvious parallels to the plot of the first film, and added some fresh new material, then this could have been better. But still, a fun time at the movies. Can't wait for the third film.

#9 of 23 OFFLINE   Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor



  • 8,024 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted December 25 2007 - 01:39 PM

Didn't see the first one, and the family picked this one for the Christmas film. Completely lightweight and harmless...some good turns by great actors, and I got the "characterization" immediately that I might have missed in the first film. So...I'm sure if the first was for you, this will be as well Posted Image For me, it was two hours in the dark...I've seen much better, but I've endured much worse. I consider reasonably watchable to be a compliment.

That said, the Goofy short was the bee's knees. Loved it, loved it, loved it.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#10 of 23 OFFLINE   Chris Atkins

Chris Atkins

    Producer



  • 3,887 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002

Posted December 26 2007 - 04:49 AM

Watch the first one. It's got a bit more "oompf" in the historical department which makes it a better film, IMHO. But the second one has better action, etc.

#11 of 23 ONLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,786 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationVermont

Posted December 29 2007 - 05:18 PM

My audience didn't seem to be into the "Goofy" short. Though there were some guffaws from the older guys in the audience (who likely had HT systems at home), the kids were stone-faced throughout.

Also, while I liked NT2 in general, the action in London around the first half of the plank really pulled me out of the film. I know, it's just a movie, and there were more unbelieveable things in the film, but these just seemed careless and could have been done differently, I thought:

#1 - The whole traffic camera thing. You're taking a hell of a chance that the camera will zoom in that close on the passenger compartment instead of just the license plate, that there will be no glare on the windshield, and that you have it at precisely the right angle to see the entire thing in the frame.

#2 - If you're trying to keep a small wooden object out of the hands of the villains, why on earth would you throw it off a bridge in plain sight of the villains? Not to mention, wood floats. Seems like an incredibly dumb thing to do given that Ben seemed so smart the rest of the time. Though I suppose he was also trying to end the chase thru London.

I was also annoyed that the "Page 47" thing didn't get resolved in any way. I even waited until after the credits to see if there was a final scene about it, but no such luck. Posted Image
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#12 of 23 OFFLINE   Jason Harbaugh

Jason Harbaugh

    Screenwriter



  • 2,968 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2001

Posted December 30 2007 - 08:52 AM

Your last sentence explains it. They wanted to end the chase. They knew he wouldn't know what the wood plank meant and got their picture of it (far fetched movie plot device with the camera of course) so there was no need to hold onto it anymore, especially if it meant getting themselves killed. So out the window when the bad guys could see it fly.

Seems like a lot of the younger audiences didn't 'get' the goofy short. I've read on a couple other forums where people were pissed that they had to sit through a bunch of previews and that short before the movie started.

#13 of 23 OFFLINE   Shawn_KE

Shawn_KE

    Screenwriter



  • 1,295 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 25 2003

Posted December 30 2007 - 05:58 PM

Why throw the plank of wood out though? At that point, Harris's group just knew they had something, but didn't know what. Should have just thrown a seat cusion or something. Page 47 was just a set up to NT3. I think the first one was better, but this was a fun flick.

#14 of 23 OFFLINE   todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor



  • 6,996 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted January 02 2008 - 08:17 AM

A few things maybe someone can answer....

-How exactly does Ben vindicate his great-grandfather? Besides the fact the other guy admits it.

-Wouldn't that much gold pretty much destroy the gold market? Posted Image

-Did anyone else think the other guys relative was really John Wilkes Booth? His last name was Wilkenson?

-Why couldn't the President just say they got trapped in the tunnel? He wouldn't have to justify the "book of secrets" talk. Just they were exploring and the door closed and they walked out.

-Finally, why would he have to sneak into the White House or the Queens office? You figure he would have had enough clout (from the treasure he found in the first movie) to be able to search the desks without having to break in.

And yes...I know. Any of the above would have made for a boring movie. Posted Image
Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#15 of 23 OFFLINE   MatthewLouwrens

MatthewLouwrens

    Producer



  • 3,034 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted January 02 2008 - 12:15 PM

I was really surprised by it. I remember enjoying the first film, but couldn't remember much about it at all. So I wasn't all that excited about seeing it (and in fact, my only reason for going was to see the Goofy short). But I enjoyed the film a lot. Yes, there were plot holes galore. But it was a film where a guy had to kidnap the President in order to find the City of Gold to prove his great-great-great-grandfather wasn't involved in the Kennedy assassination. You can't take the film seriously, and need to just enjoy the film as a ride. And from that perspective, the film works brilliantly. As for the Goofy short - they didn't show it. So I am curious whether the prints sent to New Zealand didn't have the short, or whether the local cinema in Wanganui just decided not to show it. (I'm not happy about either situation, but it would be nice to know who to blame.) So, if anyone else from New Zealand is reading this - was the Goofy short shown in your screening?

#16 of 23 OFFLINE   Jeff Cooper

Jeff Cooper

    Screenwriter



  • 1,287 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2000

Posted May 27 2008 - 07:00 AM

Just saw this for the first time at home last night, and cannot for the life of me figure out how the discovery of the city of gold clears his family name. Can someone explain this to me? I know that Ed Harris admits that to him that it was a ruse, but that's just a personal aside that no one else heard, so how would this clear his name?
-Jeff Cooper

"Curse you inspector Dim! You are too clever for us naughty people."

#17 of 23 OFFLINE   Chris Atkins

Chris Atkins

    Producer



  • 3,887 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002

Posted May 27 2008 - 07:21 AM

I asked my wife the same thing after we watched it last night, and we couldn't figure it out either.

#18 of 23 ONLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,786 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationVermont

Posted May 27 2008 - 08:16 AM

I'm a little fuzzy on the details myself, but I think it's because the KGC were seeking to find Cibola to continue the war and, with the funding provided by all the gold, overthrow the Union/North. If Thomas Gates was involved in this conspiracy, he would have simply worked with the KGC and handed them the clues to find the City and plunder its gold.

By following the clues and finding the City themselves, Ben and his family were able to prove that although Thomas had cracked the code and knew the clues for finding Cibola, he didn't share that info with the KGC. Therefore, he wasn't on the side of the KGC traitors.

Or I could be wrong, too. Posted Image
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#19 of 23 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer



  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 27 2008 - 08:26 AM

Just watched this the other night and thought it was awful. I really liked the first NT so I was excited to watch the sequel, but unfortunately it was inferior in every way. One of Cage's most uninspired performances in a long time, Jon Voight acted like a bumbling idiot, Helen Mirren's talent was completely wasted and Ed Harris, even though he was the best actor in the film, wasn't a very imposing villain. This movie was just plain bad and I'm thankful it was a rental and not a blind buy. Posted Image
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#20 of 23 OFFLINE   Chris Atkins

Chris Atkins

    Producer



  • 3,887 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002

Posted May 27 2008 - 09:19 AM

Not sure that reasoning works, since everyone knows they didn't find the city and, hence, win the war. Ben even says as much at the end of his presentation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users