|
Directed by: Jon Turteltaub Starring: Nicholas Cage, Sean Bean, Jon Voigt I got to see this movie for free at my university in an advance screening (go UCI). I want to say first that I went into this movie expecting it to have a decent "cheese factor" to it since a) it was made by Disney and b) Nicholas Cage generally comes of in a cheesy manner ("Put the bunny in the box"). However, I have to say hands down, that I enjoyed this movie for what it was: a fast-paced adventure that crosses the globe in a competitive race. There's not a whole lot of time spent developing characters or explaining their pasts, motives, or desires. I saw it with a few of my "movie critic" friends, who absolutely love movies like Garden State and turn their noses up at anything they deem "beneath them" and they of course did not like it. So, fair warning: if you are one of those "movie snob" types, you will definitely not enjoy this movie. That being said, if you approach this movie looking for a fun time, you will probably be pleasantly delighted. Nicholas Cage was probably a bad choice for the lead, but his sidekick is wonderful. He has some really humorous lines and was a very endearing character. I thought of him kind of as a weird cross between Watson from sherlock Holmes and Arthur from the Tick, if that makes any sense at all. Sean Bean (Boromir from LOTR) is his usual villainous self and does a good job. The film follows the traditional formula of good guys gaining an edge only to lose it to the bad guys, who then lose their advantage to the good guys, etc. Not that this is a bad thing, but at times it was a little exasperating. As far as the story goes, well it is definitely a stretch of the imagination. Check your skepticism at the door and look at it as a fantastic tale, not a historical story. Many of the riddles and clues in the movie are well thought out and actually make sense. A few are discovered all too easily, but again suspension of disbelief is a must for this film. The movie progresses quickly and there are very few talking/traveling/romance scenes. The story usually progresses from one action sequence to a clue to the next action sequence. All in all, I enjoyed the movie. If I were forced to make a comparison I would say it felt like an Indiana Jones script with a hint of James Bond, all directed by the guy who did the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies. This doesn't have as bad of one-liners as the Mummy movies, but it has that general light-hearted feel to it. One of my friends commented that the movie felt like a disney-ified Dan Brown without all the religious overtones. This is actually a pretty good one-line description of what to expect. Fast-paced, over the top action that requires a lot of leeway for plausibility, but provides a fun and entertaining story. RATING: 4.0 PROS: Relatively interesting concept, fast-paced story, humorous sidekick, decent riddles CONS: cheesy acting at times, implausible story, not a great deal of character depth ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2004 11:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
I saw the employee screening, and to be honest I wasn't expecting much more than the standard action movie. However, I was quite suprised with the historical accuracy of the movie. Everything in there from the letters to the crypts actually does exist. The Knights-Templar actually did have treasure they were carrying from the promised land that got lost at sea. The founding fathers were actually freemasons, and there are catacombs like that underneath temples. Of course, I don't think there is a secret message on the back of the Decleration of Independence, but at least the story has some plausable aspects. The cinematography was great, Half the movie was done with torches and I have no idea HOW they did that. Of the few downsides the romance factor was cliche and predictable. But much better than your average hollywood cr*p. If you like action movies, see this. If you like historical fiction, see this. If you like earth-shatteringly deep plot twists and drama, not your movie. 3.5 stars. Snickeringshadow fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 19, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2004 21:03
|
|
|
could someone with archives find and repost my review for this from the thread i started. just to add something to this discussion it was a definately fun popcorn movie i believe i gave it 3.5 or 4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2004 23:02
|
|
|
quote:irishjoo came out of the archives to say:
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2004 23:04
|
|
|
For more enjoyable than I thought it would. I would say, in fact, that it deserves to be advertised as coming from the producer of The Pirates of the Caribbean (which I loved). It's not as good as that film, but it was a solid adventure film that succeeds in most of the goals it sets for itself. Set on a cross country (with a brief start at the arctic circle) journey to find a lost treasure, the movie keeps up a breathless chase from clue to clue, never pausing to think about how absurd the entire concept is, which is a good thing. Nic Cage is fun and delivers some amazing amount of exposition without bogging everything down, which is an accomplishment. Diane Heidkrueger is hot for hotness sake, Sean Bean plays smart bad guy well enough, and Justin Batha actually works as comic relief. The adventure and story is heavy on Indy and the Last Crusade with some dolloping of DaVinci Code. In fact, if it wasn't for the absurdity of the story it would probably score near the top of the scale. For what it's worth, it runs with it's concept with full confidence and pays off overall. That's about all I ask from a film, regardless of how retarded a concept it might be based on. This is also the last movie I saw that I thought was perfectly suited as a PG film. Four out of Five Pros: Good cast, fun adventure, fast moving plot with just the right level of detail Cons: Retarded concept
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2004 05:48
|
|
|
Typical cookie cutter action flick, nothing spectacular. Nick cage still needs acting lessons, Chick was hot, computer dude was goofy yet lovable. Overall this film gets a 3.5. On a school scale that is a C, average. If you feel like saving money pop in an action DVD at home where there is nothing to disrupt you and enjoy. However if you love Cage, and feel like throwing money at something you have seen before go check it out. Edit: Never reviewed a movie here before so I voted 2.5 since 50% is average. Man I wish this rating system was at my school
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2004 08:44
|
|
|
Saw this with fellow goon Pyxis. Don't look too hard for plotholes, you'll find them. It's still an adventurous film that won't leave you feeling cheated. If you liked the DaVinci code, you'll probably like this. The puzzles were interesting as well. Constant action. Sidekick guy was funny. Voted 3.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2004 10:00
|
|
|
This movie was hilarious. I wasn't going into it expecting a serious action movie, and it wasn't at all. I was surprised at the comedy and historical value of many of the things they talked about. It would be a good movie for a US History class to watch. Pros: Funny, action scenes were actually pretty good, it has Trevelyan from Goldeneye. Cons: THERE'S A TREASURE MAP ON THE BACK OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE! AND IT'S INVISIBLE! As an action movie: 3/5 As an action-filled comedic adventure: 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2004 10:57
|
|
|
I also cought this at an advance screening on Wednesday. I meant to write a review here sooner but lost the time. Anyway, the movie is super cheesy. The scenes where Cage is sitting around trying to figure out the riddles are absolutly awful. He links the clues with the absolute most tenuous of connections (They remind me of the episode of South Park "Cancelled" in which the Earth reality show is cancelled. There is a scientist in the episode who does this same retarded connection theory thing, only obviously more absurd). There's nothing realistic about the entire movie (correct me if I'm wrong but the beginning of the movie talks about rushing the secret to the White House, but I'm pretty sure at this point in history the White House didn't exist yet and the Capital was in PA.). The movie has it's moments, mostly involving the technology guy trying to be smart about history and getting shut down by Cage and his female friend. Another thing I didn't like about this movie is that absolutly nobody can aim a weapon. There's no way anybody could miss a shot if their target was 5 feet in front of them and climbing a latter. Just don't have him shoot at all, it makes no sense for him to miss a shot like this. The effects are pretty cool I guess, and the mystery aspect is done fairly well (except for the clue deductions). The action is pretty good also (as expected from a Jerry B. movie), except for the weapon work. I like Nick Cage so I enjoyed his stuff mostly. The scenes involving the theft of the Declaration of Independence are pretty cool, if slightly far fetched. Overall, National Treasure is an almost-decent popcorn action flick. 2.5 stars. StrikerObi fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 20, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2004 19:11
|
|
|
Discussion
Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Nov 20, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2004 20:11
|
|
|
not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 24, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2004 20:03
|
|
|
Overall an enjoyable film. The plot is a bit contrived, but I realize they are working on limited time. Cage was average, as usual, but his sidekick was entertaining. While there are better movies out there, there are certainly a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2004 22:35
|
|
|
totally disappointed in cage's performance. he was doing really well with adaptation (and even matchstick men). very disappointed in him here. sidekick was amusing, chick was hot (too bad she couldnt act). plot made... no sense. 2/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2004 01:53
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this movie, and although I'm a Nicolas Cage anti-fan I actually thought he was pretty good in this movie. I believe his patented one-expression technique really fit the bill in his attempt as an Indiana Jones wannabe. My date thoroughly enjoyed this movie and couldn't shut up about it when we went to dinner afterwards. As has already been said Cages' sidekick made this movie. His many one-liners always had me ready to hear what he had to say, and more often than not he had me chuckling. I was also surprised to see Harvey Keitel and Jon Voight in this movie - which tells me that I should pay closer attention to the advertisements. I've always thought that Jon Voight was over-rated, and that still holds true in my humble opinion. He just seems dead inside. Harvey Keitel was good. Just...good. I've seen him better, and I've seen him worse. He didn't seem to fit the part he was playing, during the movie I was thinking that he might have been better suited to play the part of the bad-guy. Although the story is quite predictable, it was thoroughly enjoyable. This movie was non-stop adventure from start to finish which made it well worth the 8.50 to see. I give it a 4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2004 02:26
|
|
|
i haven't become a huge Cage fan but he has done a few good films. not much to miss here though, while tales of the illuminati and masons are interesting and somewhat taboo i think the film was a little interesting just in that respect. otherwise the acting and pure hollywood type-casting of this film is a little obnoxious. Could be amusing if you have nothing else to watch though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2004 06:10
|
|
|
quote:Onta vasa came out of the closet to say: Reviews only please, but you can go to https://www.themoviespoiler.com for this stuff. walrusnote: reviews only applies to you too, thanks Somebody fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Nov 24, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2004 06:19
|
|
|
Just saw this movie tonight. I don't see how people think the acting was that bad. Sure, a few lines were shot out fairly quickly, but other than that, I thought it was superb. I loved the whole historical value of it. Names were droppped like Charles Carroll (only Catholic to sign the Declaration) that made me grin. Sean Penn played a great villain, and vice-versa for Cage. And Diane Kruger... poo poo don't get me started on how fine she is. I actually found the sidekick, at times, to be annoying. He had some mediocre one-liners, but for the most part I thought he was overdoing the role of the goof-off. The fast action and story line put the sprinkles on the cake. Rating: 4.5 Pros: Action and storyline like you're on ecstasy, Diane Kruger's phat rear end, great historical weight, and overall great action flick (I was amazed it's by Disney) Cons: Kind of slow start, and the sidekick was a bit obnoxious. Worth the money!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2004 06:41
|
|
|
Many months ago I saw the trailer for this beautiful film and new I was destined to see it opening night. Cage and Bruckheimer teaming up again, with John Voigt? What's not to love??? Well everything if you take the movie seriously. If you take the movie as a chance to see Nicholas Cage make ridiculous eyebrow gestures then you're set. I was laughing from start to finish and many hours after the film. This movie is scene after scene of comedy gold. The comic relief is probably the only portion of the movie you will not laugh at; but then you will, because its so unbelievably horrible. I thoroughly enjoyed this film as a comedy. However as an action movie, or as a serious historical action movie, no. In this context you have an overly serious Cage who's character's super power is his vast knowledge of American history. Which for the most part is relatively accurate, and probably interesting if you're an American. However basically every other historical reference in the film is so damned incorrect that if I wern't watching this film as a farce I might have started yelling in the theater. I'm not trying to be a picky history snob dick either, there are just blatant lies and inconsistancies. Speaking of which, the plot of this movie makes no sense, however it's so consistant in not making sense that it just adds to the incrediblosity of this picture. I loved this movie, I will definetly see it again, probably in theaters. I'm definetly renting it and I will probably buy the dvd. Comedy this good is rare to find outside of a Steven Seagal film, who would definetly have played an interesting lead character; but Cage was amazing. "Put the bunny in the box". GOLD 5/5, 6/5 if I could. It's just so good. Bennett fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Nov 25, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2004 19:59
|
|
|
WHAT A MAGICAL POST. If you did not like something about someone's review, report it view the wondrous "report" button.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Nov 29, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2004 06:49
|
|
|
Just saw the movie, and thought it was pretty good. The puzzles and history were pretty cool, the storyline was pretty solid, and action was decent. If there were more riddles and less Ian chasing Ben chasing Ian it would have been better. An overall good film Pros: Story, History, Puzzles, Action Cons: Kind of repititve 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2004 02:12
|
|
|
quote:KatMan911 came out of the closet to say: This movie is basically Indiana Jones with less whips and Nazis and more riddles and campiness, which makes it very good, but not great. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2004 02:08
|
|
|
This is an extremely fun film. As most people have stated already, hardcore movie critics will probably not like this film. It isn't as quality as Requiem for a Dream or Blow, but overall I REALLY enjoyed this film. Disney always pulls off fantastic stuff, and this is a drat good example of it. I give it a 5/5. Go see this with your family and friends, you won't regret it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2004 10:20
|
|
|
Another James Bond action movie with plot holes the size of Washington, D.C. You'll probably stay entertained up through the thrilling and somewhat predictable conclusion-- I know I was on the edge of my seat-- but good movies leave you talking at the end of the film, and this one just leaves you slowly discovering how ridiculous the whole thing was. If there's a better movie you could watch, spring for that instead. You will not be missing anything. I totally killed two hours watching this. PROS: Delicious CONS: Bad aftertaste 2/5 Shii fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 28, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2004 22:05
|
|
|
I'll keep this plain and simple. If you like Dan Brown's books, you will like this movie. It's like somebody read Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code, said "Hey, I can do that...IN MOVIE FORM!" and did it. Same structure, same ridiculously tenuous connections between clues and solutions, same cheesy action fun goodness. I like Dan Brown, so I liked this. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2004 23:54
|
|
|
Shii's review is pretty close to what I'm about to say... doesn't mean I can't say it. Honestly, I saw the previews for this and thought it was going to be a piece of trash, but went to see it because some friends were going. (See also Reign of Fire.) It stars Nicolas "Yes, my face is frozen like this" Cage as a protagonist obsessed with a treasure supposedly hidden by the Freemasons to keep it from the British. From the first scene of the movie I was not disappointed. Not 15 minutes into the movie, Cage is confronted with a riddle, which he solves in a manner eerily reminiscent of Adam West from Batman. We're supposed to believe that Cage's character is the most brilliant puzzle solver in centuries, or that the puzzles are that blindingly obvious. As a source of conflict, there are eventually two groups trying to get the treasure: Cage and friends, representing Team America, and Sean Bean and his band of thugs, representing the British. (Don't think we didn't pick up on that.) There's also a romantic subplot, a father-son conflict, and a straight-man sidekick. (More on him later.) Eventually, a second group of antagonists in the form of the FBI appear, entirely clueless of this legend... up until Cage finds the treasure, and the FBI agent reveals that he knew about it all along and just didn't bother to mention it until this point. Turns out that, as others have said, there's a map on the back of the Declaration of Independence. And it's INVISIBLE. And ENCODED. And in order to read the map you have to break the encoding, which leads you to the SECRET DECODER GLASSES which decode the map, which lead you to the PLACE WHERE YOU MIGHT FIND THE TREASURE. Incidentally, said place is a ten story deep shaft... under downtown New York City. You would think they'd have come across this GIANT OPEN SPACE over the past 300 years, but noooo... Apologies for the multiple spoiler tags, but I had to break this somehow so you don't accidentally see the whole plot of the movie.] Enough about the plot, it makes my head hurt with all the giant plotholes. The saving grace of this movie is JUSTIN BARTHA. Justin Bartha contributes virtually nothing to the plot, and his defined role is "uber-computer nerd and straight-man to every single joke". He has a series of really great one-liners, and the fact that he has as little as possible to do with the plot is a huge point in his favor. Frankly... ugh. Not enough explosions to be an action movie, not enough plot to be serious viewing, not enough family entertainment to be a family movie, and it's disqualified from the category of comedy because most of it is unintentional. PRO: JUSTIN BARTHA JUSTIN BARTHA JUSTIN BARTHA CON: The plot. RATING: 2.5/5 Incoherence fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Nov 29, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2004 10:09
|
|
|
Completely average film. Typically, a Jerry Bruckheimer production means excessive stunts and special effects to try and pave over the completely absent story. However, this film tried to make use of some sort of story barely mixed with action and adventure. The wry humor made up for the otherwise plain, ordinary film that would have annoyed me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2004 17:59
|
|
|
A pleasant surprise. I went into this movie expecting nothing. The trailers looked pretty bad, it didn't seem like there was much hope. Now, it wasn't revolutionary, by any means, and it's not a favorite either, but I had a lot of fun, and as has been said a lot, Justin Bartha was fantastic. Some of the jokes weren't great, but there were moments that I audibly laughed, and I try not to do that in theaters. I'd give it a 4. Very fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2004 01:07
|
|
|
I was expecting a rollicking treasure-hunting type movie and I was mostly not disappointed. Unlike one of the last posters I found that computer nerd goofball to be one of the lowest points, since his job was apparently to add manufactured levity NO MATTER WHAT and most of the time it fell flat. Lots of retarded movie physics but you can hardly hold that against a movie like this. I was kind of hoping to hear the word "analemma" at one point but I figured probably not. The second part of the invisible map thing with the magical glasses kind of disappointed me since up to that point the movie had seemed relatively "realistic" in terms of the clues and so forth. But whatever. Overall I guess I give it a 3.5, not a bad movie for its type, but not among the best Bruckheimer-ish movies I've seen either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2004 21:08
|
|
|
This film was good, clean fun. You go in expecting a lame Disney movie but you leave feeling psyched up and satisfied. If you can get past Nicholas Cage's cadence and attitude (no different in this film than any other one he's been in) you'll really enjoy the adventure that this film has to offer. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2004 02:51
|
|
|
I enjoyed the film. It was believable enough to be interesting, and fanciful enough to be entertaining. The love interest was hot, and the romantic bits weren't too prevelant (once you know they will get together, you really dont need to actually see it happen), and the dumb sidekick was funny. On that last point though, I really found Riley annoying. He has got to be the dumbest nerdy guy in film history. He can hack into security systems blindfolded, but cant actually work *anything* else out (WHAT ARE THESE NUMBERS!? WHAT IS A CODE?!). Okay, I can see him not knowing exactly how the code works (good thing Gates is super-smart-code-breaker-machine), but at least identify that yes, it is a code of some kind. There were other examples that escape me know. I did enjoy how he can't drive for poo poo, keeps it from being too over-the-top-disney happily ever after ending. All in all, I liked it, but i have a passing interest in history, and this makes it seem fun. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2004 23:49
|
|
|
I really liked this film. Like everyone else has said, dont go into it expecting something deep. Go into it expecting a fun ride. I went into this movie not knowing the rating, and just assumed it was R like most other Hollywood action movies. There is not a swear in here, and although there is some gunfighting, nobody gets shot. And the movie doesnt suffer from the lack of profanity or violence at all. In fact it was refreshing to see a movie stand on its own rather than blood and guts. Like others have said, think a healthy dose of Indiana Jones, with some Thomas Crown Affair and a well played sidekick, and you have this movie. I give it a 4/5, I had fun watching this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2004 08:28
|
|
|
OMG THERE'S A MAP ON THE BACK OF THE DECLARATION!!! I have to admit, I was expecting the movie to bomb even before I entered the movie theater. I read The Davinci Code, and, honestly, you could basically interchange the plot and still get basically the same story. Like The DaVinci Code, this movie was greatly overrated and quite frankly made a mockery of national artifacts and history in general. It wasn't really a thriller, it was mediocre action, and as a suspense film, I could predict exactly what would happen next based on The DaVinci Code. On the other hand, I suppose that it was great ridiculous entertainment. The image of Gates's father saying in a monotone voice, "oh my God, oh my God you stole the Declaration" while doing an incredibly silly dance that I guess was supposed to be surprise will stick with me forever. I give a 2.5/5, only for the dancing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2004 21:01
|
|
|
This movie is so easy to predict, it's sickening. It's basically the Da Vinci Code in America. That said, I still had a great time watching this movie. It's not some great ground-breaking movie, but it definitely worth a watch. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2005 19:57
|
|
|
Mindless fluff. Plot holes big enough to fit Ackbar's fat head through. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2005 13:01
|
|
|
quote:StrikerObi came out of the closet to say: This scene was happening as the last of the signers was dying in 18-something, I think in the twenties or thirties (1832?). The White House, having been burned down during the British invasion in the War of 1812, did exist by that time. I liked the movie overall. Pretty predictable, as has been said, but the sidekick was great, the love interest was hot, and Nick Cage was solid. That's really all you can ask for from a Disney movie. The plotholes didn't bother me in the least. 3.5/5.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2005 07:54
|
|
|
It entertained me. Even though a few lines were forced etc. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2005 18:43
|
|
|
Terrible movie. Disney + Heist Movie isn't a good combination. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2005 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
I think what I liked least about this movie is that the villain was British, and they didn't do to good of job setting up the conflict between the two groups. Otherwise I thought it was very good at what it tried to be. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2005 10:28
|
|
