National Treasure: Thoughts on the movie?

An excellent film. I highly recommend it to everyone! Nicolas Cage truly knows how to act!!
It is a shame the movie wasn't longer...

The film was Directed by
Jon Turteltaub,
starring: Nicolas Cage, Diane Kruger, Justin Barth, Sean Bean, and others. It runs for a full 131 minutes, yet I would have welcomed at least another thirty minutes... (Has anyone else noticed that lately, no film seems to be under two hours😁 unless it's one of those mindless ones...).

genre: Adventure / Action

Here are a few screenshots if you'd like to take a look OVDJE

You overlooked the most critical detail: it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Sorry, Richard Hernandez13, but I’m steering clear of that one unless I start hearing a mountain of glowing reviews about him.

Roger Ebert once mentioned that the Monty Python crew could probably whip up a movie using that exact same script. 😬

Richard Hernandez13 said:Roger Ebert once remarked that Monty Python could probably turn the exact same script into a movie. 😬

A guy finds a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence?

Figures.

casualotter21 said:You totally missed the biggest factor: it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Sorry, buddy, but I’m skipping this one unless I hear a massive wave of decent reviews for him.

I'll keep it simple: GENIUS MOVIE!

Pure genius. Probably the first movie in five years where I didn't find myself checking my watch every five minutes. Fun and actually engaging. 👍

I think the movie is actually pretty good, though I wasn't a huge fan of that museum scene where he's reading from the Declaration of Independence. It felt a bit like typical American over-dramatization, I guess. Just kind of much, maybe.

I honestly feel like Cage has never hit a lower point than this.

nimblebear43 said:The movie's fine, except for that museum scene where he recites part of the Declaration of Independence. It felt like pure, unadulterated American cheesiness. Just awful.

Sure, but that Hollywood cheesiness is nothing compared to how much Americans actually bullshit in real life today.

I’ve always thought this was a fantastic movie. It has that classic adventure vibe, similar to Indiana Jones, which I haven't actually seen 🙂

But honestly, massive respect for Nicolas Cage. There is just nobody else quite like him when it comes to acting🙂

It's a bit confusing, though, kind of like 🙂

Juhu, another movie I'm definitely skipping 😬

I just finished watching this film, which felt like a flashy, educational Disney's picture book for kids: easy to consume and even easier to forget. It involves some nonsense about Freemasons, a treasure map hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence, a villainous character who suddenly pops up wanting the loot for himself, and some sort of tedious scavenger hunt plot...

I’d much rather rewatch Indiana Jones or The Mummy.

God save America.

Beyond that, it’s just a lukewarm adventure and nothing more. I actually like Nicolas Cage, but this movie feels pretty flat. Is it just me, or is something missing?

slycrane94 said:Beyond that, it's just a lukewarm adventure and nothing more. Personally, I actually like Nicolas Cage, but this movie feels pretty bland. It’s just missing something.

The film is an easy, quick watch, which actually surprised me; usually, when I sit down for one of Bruckheimer's movies, I start rolling my eyes within minutes (the sole exception being "The Rock"—but then again, you had Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage, and Ed Harris in that).

But yeah, the movie simply lacks charisma. Everything feels pale and forgettable. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has Nazis, a badass lead, a female lead he constantly bickers with, a giant rolling boulder, submarines, planes, the Ark of the Covenant, exotic locations ranging from South America to Nepal to Egypt, and great action scenes... Meanwhile, what does "National Treasure" even have, poor thing?

I spent most of the film wondering who on earth this guy played by Sean Bean is supposed to be. I mean, seriously? He's this incredibly wealthy, cool Englishman—basically a criminal. What exactly is he spending his hard-earned money, time, and energy on? Chasing childish clues and the messy theories of some crackpot archaeologist. WTF?

...some billionaire who can afford just about anything, including a couple of generic British thugs to serve as his henchmen.

What really left me scratching my head, though, was the whole motivation behind why the heroes of the nation would bother creating such an absurdly convoluted series of over-the-top riddles.
I tried my best to come up with a logical explanation, but honestly, the only thing that ever crossed my mind was, "Just so some idiot could eventually turn the whole mess into a ridiculous movie." 😁

Richard Hernandez13 said:I was even more confused by why the Founding Fathers would bother making such an unbelievable, over-engineered series of riddles.
I tried to come up with a logical reason, but the only thing that actually made sense was: "Just so some idiot could eventually make a stupid movie about it." 😁

Sure, but you could make that exact same argument about the third Indiana Jones movie, which follows basically the same blueprint.

nimblemarlin17 said:True, but you could make that same argument about a third Indiana Jones movie, which follows an almost identical formula.

Fair point. However, I think these two critiques perfectly highlight the distinction between Indy 3 and NT.

Nothing in NT is actually *that* terrible. We have a somewhat likable lead, some decent comic relief, a reasonably charming female lead, and a halfway interesting plot... The issue is that everything stays stuck at "halfway," which is why the film feels so mediocre.

On the other hand, even if we have some naive clues in India 3, everything else is so much better that I barely notice them. Though, even regarding those clues: isn't Indy just following breadcrumbs left by his father in a journal he spent *years* filling out? With that kind of setup, Indy doesn't really have to do anything besides follow instructions.

That’s not what I meant. What I was getting at is that this whole idea of "why are there even clues leading to something that shouldn't be found?" is baked into both movies. Personally, though, I think both things ought to be discovered in the end. The old knight deserves it because he's basically gone gray from pure boredom (plus that life elixir), and honestly, it's worth finding. The writers actually nailed it here. It feels legit.

If I had to pick the most ridiculous part of the movie, it’s the fact that out of maybe forty shots fired, nobody actually hits anything. Even Bruce Willis takes a stray bullet to the backside, and he’s supposed to be a historian with "questionable field experience."

NT is shallow to a fault, though I suppose one shouldn't expect much more from a production of this nature. While it offers a certain level of amusement, it is precisely the kind of film that vanishes from your mind the moment you step out of the theater. It sits in the same cinematic gutter as that pathetic, overly patriotic Dan after tomorrow, albeit possessing a slightly higher degree of humor. As for Diane Kruger, she isn't particularly striking; she possesses an excellent physique, yet she remains as slight and waifish as Kirsten Dunst.

To even attempt a comparison with Indiana Jones would be nothing short of sacrilege.

neonsailor12 said:Diane Kruger isn't bad either—she's got a great physique,

I find Diane Kruger attractive, but she just lacks charisma. She feels like just another pretty Hollywood blonde cast in a series.

I honestly can't bring myself to agree with this comparison between Indiana Jones and National Treasure.

In IJ Indy, you’re actually following genuine historical breadcrumbs—it feels much more like how Schliemann operated when he was hunting down the location of Troy.
But with NT Cage, it’s just a massive pile of manufactured clues that feel so forced they barely pass a basic logic test.
For instance, I mean, what on earth were the Founding Fathers thinking if they assumed Independence Hall wouldn't accidentally burn down or if Charlotte were to suddenly sink into the ocean?
And don't even get me started on all the other logical holes scattered throughout the plot.