National Treasure 2: The Book of Secrets
Every so often a movie like this comes along. I don’t know why. I can’t explain it, but it always makes me feel like I’m from a different planet. It’s a bit like my dislike of watermelon. I guess I’m just hopelessly different in some strange ways. I’m sure my Wife would certainly “amen” that.
That brings me to the National Treasure movies. When I saw the first National Treasure movie, I did not like it. In fact, it ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. I found it painful to watch. I used to love Nicholas Cage, who stars in the movie, as Raising Arizona is one of my all time favorite movies. Seeing him in National Treasure just made me sad since it was so so bad and it reminded me of how far his career had fallen. Then a strange thing happened. I met someone who actually liked the movie. Then another and another until I realized that I might be the only one who saw it that didn’t like it. I don’t know what the deal is. The same thing happened with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Those (at least the one I saw: the first one) were not nearly as bad as National Treasure, but I did not like it at all and the whole country went nuts for it.
I was honestly in shock that they made a National Treasure 2 and when I discovered that they had I figured this time the rest of the movie going public would see what I did. Alas, it turns out I am still some sort of misfit. Oh well. Just know this – if you liked the first one, you will probably like the second one. They are astonishingly similar. Same characters, same story line, same...well, everything except that now they are in hunt of the ancient lost city of gold instead of just a big room full of gold. In National Treasure 3 (as sure to happen as the sun rising), rumor has it they will be searching for the continuous water route that could take ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific through North America.
The National Treasure movies are generally premised on the idea that American leaders throughout this country’s history have left clues in “national treasures” such as the Constitution and Mount Rushmore that identify the location of massive and wonderful treasure that have escaped detection for the last 200 or so years. Nick Cage plays an Indiana Jones type treasure hunter who, along with his wise-cracking technical wizard sidekick, his improbably attractive wife and his confused, bumbling but brilliant father, generally make a living from Mission Impossible style break-ins to some of the most secure places in the world to find clues left by Ben Franklin and others to huge treasures.
It is a light action comedy, though I have heard some fans describe the movies as “tense.” It has the aura of giving historical insight, but trust me, it does not. There is little to no bad language, no sex or nudity and no bloody violence. It is really a pretty family friendly movie, so it does have that going for it. I feel the need to note that I’m not being sarcastic here. It is genuinely nice to see them make a big budget movie that can be enjoyed by people who want to avoid all that yuckiness.
My way of understanding the phenomenon of these movies is found in my view of all artistic endeavors whether movies, painting, music or any other creative output. I believe in all of these media there is an objective truth and a subjective reaction. I recognize that here again I part company with most people. Most people I talk with about this subject seem to believe rather strongly that “art” is purely subjective. There is no “good art” or “bad art”, there is only what you like and what I like.
Personally, I think that view insults the talent of great artists. I believe artistic talent is just like athletic or intellectual talent. It is varied in form and in quality. Some people are faster than others, some people are smarter and some people are better artists. That’s not to say that people’s creative expressions, even if lower in true quality, have no value, it is just that something I painted would not likely compare favorably with something Michael Angelo did.
In my opinion, not every creative outlet can properly be called “art” and not all creative expression is as good as the next. That’s a big part of why I like deconstructing and thinking critically about movies. Some writers/directors/actors do it well and some do not and I enjoy trying to see through to see where there is quality and where it is absent. I believe there is good acting and bad acting and good writing and bad writing in an objective sense. For example, Harrison Ford was both obnoxious and charming as Han Solo in Star Wars. Every scene he was in was enjoyable to watch because he communicated a believable character who was fun and interesting to watch. He used gestures, facial expressions, body language, varied delivery of his lines and many other things to convince us he was this egotistical space criminal sucked into a fight that wasn’t his own. The writing and directing were just ok at best, but his acting job created one of the most memorable movie characters ever.
By contrast Hayden Christianson who played the young Darth Vader in the newer Star Wars movies was AWFUL. The delivery of his admittedly terrible lines were wooden and stiff. His attempts to portray familiar emotions and personality characteristics were uneven and inconsistent. In the end, he was not the least bit believable or enjoyable to watch. Nothing rang true about him at all. The performance was objectively bad on an epic scale.
But there is another aspect of art. There is the subjective reaction of the person experiencing it. We are all different and react to things differently. There are at least a billion different factors that go in to why each of us enjoy certain things and the combination of factors is going to be different for everyone. I don’t think that’s a tough point to stomach so I’ll leave that and move on.
The curious thing to me is that the objective quality of “art” is only one of the factors that will determine whether an individual enjoys experiencing that art and is often not a controlling factor. Because this is a blog and not a philosophical treatise, I’m going to skip right past arguments about subjective response determining objective quality and keep trying to make my point.
In other words, whether something is good may have little to do with whether you like it. The world’s greatest chefs could create culinary masterpieces and any given person may still rather have a Whopper or a Taco Bell Chalupa. In my view, that does not mean that the work of the chefs is not objectively better, it just means your subjective reaction is being driven by something other than the quality of the food. This could be a very complicated discussion and debate, but again, it’s just a blog.
So, given all that, here is my take on National Treasure 2 (and the same goes for the first one). I believe it is a bad movie in just about every sense. The acting, writing, directing were all some of the worst I have ever seen. The unintentional comedy rating for this movie is off the chart as there were dozens of scenes that left me saying, “wait, you mean he meant us to take him seriously there?” The one truly redeeming characteristic of the movie is that the premise, no matter how far-fetched, is really pretty fun. It is wildly fun to think that there are secret clues all around us purposefully placed by brilliant men and women hundreds of years ago that could lead to treasure. It is fun in the Divinci Code and it is fun in these movies.
The objective problems with this movie are really too many to mention and honestly I think running through them all would become insulting to those who liked it and could possibly ruin what would otherwise be an enjoyable movie watching experience for people who like these films so I’m not going to do that here. The reality is that regardless of how “bad” I think this movie is, lots of people like it. And there’s no shame in that. Quality is just one factor that determines whether we like things and so we all have those things that are objectively lacking in quality that we nevertheless enjoy thoroughly. I loved the “Highlander” TV series. It was hokey and cheesy and I loved it. I like Justin Timberlake, corn-dogs and the movie “Desperado.” I could not make a decent “those things are objectively great” argument for any of those things but I love them anyway.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that for entertainment value, especially with movies, your subjective reaction is really all that matters. Never let some critic or anyone else for that matter tell you what you should or should not like. If you like it, you like it and good for you for finding something you like and who cares if it is objectively good! Whether it is a “good” movie is fun to consider and debate and discuss and I believe that by considering such things it is possible to heighten your appreciation and thus enjoyment for true quality but in the end it only matters that you liked it or did not. Personally, I think I could win an argument about whether National Treasure 2 is a “good” movie, but more importantly I just did not like it. But as I said, if you liked the first one, you should like the second one and since it is your 9 bucks, that is all that really counts. And since so many of you liked these movies, you will no doubt be rewarded with a 3rd and I will once again be the only one who doesn’t like it.
Of course if you liked these movies, you are probably thinking to yourself that it is awfully convenient that I get to just decide that what I like is good and what you like is just you liking something bad, but hey, it’s my blog.
That brings me to the National Treasure movies. When I saw the first National Treasure movie, I did not like it. In fact, it ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. I found it painful to watch. I used to love Nicholas Cage, who stars in the movie, as Raising Arizona is one of my all time favorite movies. Seeing him in National Treasure just made me sad since it was so so bad and it reminded me of how far his career had fallen. Then a strange thing happened. I met someone who actually liked the movie. Then another and another until I realized that I might be the only one who saw it that didn’t like it. I don’t know what the deal is. The same thing happened with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Those (at least the one I saw: the first one) were not nearly as bad as National Treasure, but I did not like it at all and the whole country went nuts for it.
I was honestly in shock that they made a National Treasure 2 and when I discovered that they had I figured this time the rest of the movie going public would see what I did. Alas, it turns out I am still some sort of misfit. Oh well. Just know this – if you liked the first one, you will probably like the second one. They are astonishingly similar. Same characters, same story line, same...well, everything except that now they are in hunt of the ancient lost city of gold instead of just a big room full of gold. In National Treasure 3 (as sure to happen as the sun rising), rumor has it they will be searching for the continuous water route that could take ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific through North America.
The National Treasure movies are generally premised on the idea that American leaders throughout this country’s history have left clues in “national treasures” such as the Constitution and Mount Rushmore that identify the location of massive and wonderful treasure that have escaped detection for the last 200 or so years. Nick Cage plays an Indiana Jones type treasure hunter who, along with his wise-cracking technical wizard sidekick, his improbably attractive wife and his confused, bumbling but brilliant father, generally make a living from Mission Impossible style break-ins to some of the most secure places in the world to find clues left by Ben Franklin and others to huge treasures.
It is a light action comedy, though I have heard some fans describe the movies as “tense.” It has the aura of giving historical insight, but trust me, it does not. There is little to no bad language, no sex or nudity and no bloody violence. It is really a pretty family friendly movie, so it does have that going for it. I feel the need to note that I’m not being sarcastic here. It is genuinely nice to see them make a big budget movie that can be enjoyed by people who want to avoid all that yuckiness.
My way of understanding the phenomenon of these movies is found in my view of all artistic endeavors whether movies, painting, music or any other creative output. I believe in all of these media there is an objective truth and a subjective reaction. I recognize that here again I part company with most people. Most people I talk with about this subject seem to believe rather strongly that “art” is purely subjective. There is no “good art” or “bad art”, there is only what you like and what I like.
Personally, I think that view insults the talent of great artists. I believe artistic talent is just like athletic or intellectual talent. It is varied in form and in quality. Some people are faster than others, some people are smarter and some people are better artists. That’s not to say that people’s creative expressions, even if lower in true quality, have no value, it is just that something I painted would not likely compare favorably with something Michael Angelo did.
In my opinion, not every creative outlet can properly be called “art” and not all creative expression is as good as the next. That’s a big part of why I like deconstructing and thinking critically about movies. Some writers/directors/actors do it well and some do not and I enjoy trying to see through to see where there is quality and where it is absent. I believe there is good acting and bad acting and good writing and bad writing in an objective sense. For example, Harrison Ford was both obnoxious and charming as Han Solo in Star Wars. Every scene he was in was enjoyable to watch because he communicated a believable character who was fun and interesting to watch. He used gestures, facial expressions, body language, varied delivery of his lines and many other things to convince us he was this egotistical space criminal sucked into a fight that wasn’t his own. The writing and directing were just ok at best, but his acting job created one of the most memorable movie characters ever.
By contrast Hayden Christianson who played the young Darth Vader in the newer Star Wars movies was AWFUL. The delivery of his admittedly terrible lines were wooden and stiff. His attempts to portray familiar emotions and personality characteristics were uneven and inconsistent. In the end, he was not the least bit believable or enjoyable to watch. Nothing rang true about him at all. The performance was objectively bad on an epic scale.
But there is another aspect of art. There is the subjective reaction of the person experiencing it. We are all different and react to things differently. There are at least a billion different factors that go in to why each of us enjoy certain things and the combination of factors is going to be different for everyone. I don’t think that’s a tough point to stomach so I’ll leave that and move on.
The curious thing to me is that the objective quality of “art” is only one of the factors that will determine whether an individual enjoys experiencing that art and is often not a controlling factor. Because this is a blog and not a philosophical treatise, I’m going to skip right past arguments about subjective response determining objective quality and keep trying to make my point.
In other words, whether something is good may have little to do with whether you like it. The world’s greatest chefs could create culinary masterpieces and any given person may still rather have a Whopper or a Taco Bell Chalupa. In my view, that does not mean that the work of the chefs is not objectively better, it just means your subjective reaction is being driven by something other than the quality of the food. This could be a very complicated discussion and debate, but again, it’s just a blog.
So, given all that, here is my take on National Treasure 2 (and the same goes for the first one). I believe it is a bad movie in just about every sense. The acting, writing, directing were all some of the worst I have ever seen. The unintentional comedy rating for this movie is off the chart as there were dozens of scenes that left me saying, “wait, you mean he meant us to take him seriously there?” The one truly redeeming characteristic of the movie is that the premise, no matter how far-fetched, is really pretty fun. It is wildly fun to think that there are secret clues all around us purposefully placed by brilliant men and women hundreds of years ago that could lead to treasure. It is fun in the Divinci Code and it is fun in these movies.
The objective problems with this movie are really too many to mention and honestly I think running through them all would become insulting to those who liked it and could possibly ruin what would otherwise be an enjoyable movie watching experience for people who like these films so I’m not going to do that here. The reality is that regardless of how “bad” I think this movie is, lots of people like it. And there’s no shame in that. Quality is just one factor that determines whether we like things and so we all have those things that are objectively lacking in quality that we nevertheless enjoy thoroughly. I loved the “Highlander” TV series. It was hokey and cheesy and I loved it. I like Justin Timberlake, corn-dogs and the movie “Desperado.” I could not make a decent “those things are objectively great” argument for any of those things but I love them anyway.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that for entertainment value, especially with movies, your subjective reaction is really all that matters. Never let some critic or anyone else for that matter tell you what you should or should not like. If you like it, you like it and good for you for finding something you like and who cares if it is objectively good! Whether it is a “good” movie is fun to consider and debate and discuss and I believe that by considering such things it is possible to heighten your appreciation and thus enjoyment for true quality but in the end it only matters that you liked it or did not. Personally, I think I could win an argument about whether National Treasure 2 is a “good” movie, but more importantly I just did not like it. But as I said, if you liked the first one, you should like the second one and since it is your 9 bucks, that is all that really counts. And since so many of you liked these movies, you will no doubt be rewarded with a 3rd and I will once again be the only one who doesn’t like it.
Of course if you liked these movies, you are probably thinking to yourself that it is awfully convenient that I get to just decide that what I like is good and what you like is just you liking something bad, but hey, it’s my blog.
Comments
I do agree with you that the Pirates trio was horrible! I didn't understand much of the dialogue of the first one because the sound at the theater was bad. Our of sheer boredom I fell asleep in the second one (went w/ my kids and against my better judgment) and refused to see the third installment.
Greg, count yourself lucky that you missed part 3. We had friends over to watch it and halfway through (an hour and a HALF into the thing), we were getting far more joy from making fun of the thing than anything. By the end, we were begging for sweet, merciful death.
Josh, my friend, I totally agree with you here...right down to your Fordian example. I watched an episode of The West Wing last night that featured better acting and directing than 90% of what makes it into the theater. There was a scene with Schiff and Janey that was Oscar-worthy. Quality is a huge factor in what I like and dislike.
But I have my guilty pleasures also. There are plenty of things I like just because they take me back to days of yore. "Superman Returns" was a mess, but I loved it. So was the recent "Hitchhiker's Guide" movie. But I grinned all the way through.
I have a friend who hates everything. His joy comes from picking things apart. I often choose to like something. Or, at least, I try very hard. If I'm TRYING to like something and I still can't...that is my definition of a real stinker.
Oh, "Buckaroo Banzai." That's another one. I couldn't help but love it. Who can say? Who can say?
That explains why you don't like the movie!
Steve,
I do like Depp, but that was a pretty bad movie. I didn't really notice the soundtrack now and I'm going to have to check that out. I get the guilty pleasure thing. I'm a sucker for comic book superhero movies. The most recent Batman was especially good and the sequal looks equally promissing. Spidey, Superman, X-Men, they were all good. Fantastic 4, Hellboy, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, not so much.
Randy, As far as you know that comment is completely without merit.
Anyway, what your blogging audience has been waiting for is christmas photos of the G-men.
Please don't let us down.