Being a history major at a fine university in Iowa, I find the National Treasure films to be unusually entertaining considering the type of made-up history that is portrayed in the films. You think this type of drivel that Disney calls ‘history’ would bother me, but I am in fact intrigued by the conspiracy theories that are proposed in National Treasure – Book of Secrets. Nicholas Cage returns as the treasure hunter, Benjamin Gates in the sequel to the 2004 hit, who finds himself trying to clear the name of his great-great grandfather who is being linked as a traitor along with John Wilkes Booth in the Lincoln assassination. Treasure pirate Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) calls out Ben and the entire Gates family claiming that their ancestor was a fraud and the leader of the whole plan to assassinate the 16th president after Wilkinson recovered missing pages from John Wilkes Booth’s personal diary. Along the way of proving his great-great grandfather’s innocence, Gates discovers clues that lead him to the White House and his discovery of the President’s Book of Secrets. The book contains the inner most secrets of the United States, including Area 51, the Roswell landing, the Kennedy Assassination, and the secret to the location of the lost city of gold, which contains a treasure so great that it could have changed the outcome of the Civil War in favor of the Confederates. With puppet/director Jon Turtletaub being restricted by puppeteer/executive producer Jerry Bruckheimer, the film struggles with character development and character plots. Character modifications are thrown at you without any development or forewarning such as Ben having a falling out with Abigail (Diane Kruger); Riley (Justin Bartha) having a turn of misfortune between himself and the IRS; and Gates’ father (Jon Voight) having to deal with meeting up with Gates’ mother (Helen Mirren) again after thirty odd years. Like in the first film, Justin Bartha again provides the comic relief, which is lacking from Nicholas Cage. Jon Voight and Helen Mirren, coming off her best actress Oscar from her role in The Queen, provide a great comic team not available in the first film. Ed Harris gives a grand performance as the sly villain, a role he has mastered from past films like The Rock and A History of Violence. I have to give it to Bruckheimer for his ability to provide outstanding visuals and settings. Turteltaub and Bruckheimer keep the film moving at a rapid pace, seldom letting things settle long enough to question the obvious plot holes that were in the script. At least the script set up the possibility of making another sequel with the introduction of Page 47 in the President’s Book of Secrets, which would provide for another rip-roaring, historically cheating rollercoaster.
The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.


(2 votes, score: 4 out of 5)

January 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
I agree with the reviewer about the plot holes, and the filmmaker’s ‘’seldom letting things settle long enough to question” them.
The problem is that –after– the film ends, one is left with this sunken ‘let down’ feeling about them.
-Jon Voight as Gates Senior gets clocked in the head in a robbery at his home, a blow so hard it knocks him cold, and afterward he gives the whole thing a cursory laugh since ‘nothing was stolen.’
His son, Nicholas Cage, seems to accept this and no one suspects anything fishy about it.
-Ed Harris’ Mitch Wilkinson is presented as a gun-wielding menace, someone who is able to kill to get what he wants, which turns out NOT to be the fabled City of Gold but CREDIT for discovering it. After all his brutal antics with his thugs, in the end he’s really a considerate Mister NiceGuy.
These are just two of the many issues that stay with you after the pleasure of watching the excitement in the film is over. There’s plenty of excitement too, but fixing these items and bringing them to a better resolution would’ve pulled the film up many notches and helped it to be Indiana Jones-calibre.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Boring, boring, boring…..stupid premise, over-acting stars. An Indiana Jones wannabe flicker of a movie. Maybe just for tweens….that\’s why?
May 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Just saw (and reviewed) this on video. I am also attending school majoring in history and have loved history. I agree with the reviewer that even though this is “made up history” (I often describe the history in these 2 movies and in Sahara as “a poor mans history book”), it is still..at times..a fun and exhilirating experience. One of those cases where you just turn youu brain off and enjoy the ride.