National Treasure

Joe Brody

Well-known member
. . . well it wasn't The Rock. Terrible supporting cast and weakly drawn characters. I enjoyed it but boy I wish Bruckheimer had put the script down for a year and had two three writers give it a good tweaking and make things a little zestier.
 

Luckylighter

New member
When I see a movie that I really like, I tend not to build it up too much for people who haven't seen it yet, because no movie--no matter how great it is--can ever live up to the hype.

With that said, I saw National Treasure on opening night, and I thought it was way better than any of those Tomb Raider debacles. Just don't go in expecting a lot of gunfights and fisticuffs like Raiders. It's a different kind of adventure movie. It's more about chases and escapes. But they are very well done chases and escapes. I liken it to North by Northwest, rather than Raiders.

Unfortunately, no body wore a fedora. But Nic Cage did wear a pretty nifty looking tux
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Lucky, I agree with your observations about it being a chase/escape movie . . . however, I didn't think that the heist elements were all that good. I've seen Ocean's Eleven and I'm tired of the copycat scenes in other films that lay out the security, challenges etc. and then 'cleverly' shifts into the plan and execution. And I thought that the action and chases in films like The Rock were better than National Treasure.
 

Luckylighter

New member
Joe Brody said:
I've seen Ocean's Eleven and I'm tired of the copycat scenes in other films that lay out the security, challenges etc. and then 'cleverly' shifts into the plan and execution.

Absolutely, that style has become one of the most overused cliches, from Casino to Mission Impossible to Ocean's Eleven--I couldn't agree more, and that part of the movie did make me roll my eyes.

But as far as the chases, you can't compare National Treasure to The Rock, because they are different kinds of movies. The Rock was meant to be a pure adreneline, big, dumb, action epic, whereas National Treasure was more Hitchcockian--no, I'm not saying it was as good as Hitchcock, just that it had elements, and that kind of sensibility. The chases in National Treasure were more grounded in reality compare to The Rock--especially that whole chase through San Francisco, with the explosions, and the Hummer and the trolley car--which was more fantastical.

It's like comparing the fight scenes in The Bourne Identity to the fight scenes in The Matrix: one could physically happen, while the other cannot. I mean, the chases in National Treaure could happen, because it was mostly just people running--no Ferraris, no Hummers, no over the top mass destruction. Don't get me wrong...I love The Rock (the movie, not the wrestler), just in a different way and for different reasons. I liked the chases in National Treasure--especially in Philly--because they were simpler and, therefore, slightly more believable.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Excellent Post. You're right that action in the The Rock was more over the top -- but I gotta admit that I crave that type of action to be entertained.

I hear what you're saying about Hitchcock . . . but to accept a lower (more believable) level of action I need a great everyman. . . like Ad-man Cary Grant or small town doctor Jimmy Stewart. Cage's resourceful character and his sidekick are something more. . . and it's clear -- given their skills exhibited during the Washington scenes -- that they are not ordinary everym[e]n. Bruckheimer can't have it both ways. As a result, give me the Chicago Auctionhouse scene (North By Northwest over the Philadelphia Cheesteak counter any day of the week. National Treasure's action was straight-up and pretty vanilla. Instead, I would have preferred Cage doing something more clever/resourceful in the above-mentioned great Tux.
 

Magda

New member
I know what the critics have been saying about National Treasure. Do not, by any means, believe them! They overanalyze movies that should be simply left alone and enjoyed by the public. What matters is that the audience likes it, not the opinion of a bunch of snobs who think they know films. I just came back from this movie, and I must say that I was thoroughly entertained. It's amusing, interesting, and of course, adventurous, earning my rating of three and a half out of fours stars. I wouldn't call it an Oscar-worthy film; however, I was not looking for one.

By the way, Raffey, I think it's another one of those movies that stole our plotlines from the adventure table! ;) :p
 
Last edited:

hffan2000

New member
i gotta say i loved this movie! there are several reasons.
1) absolutely no language or sex scenes so the whole family can enjoy the action and adventure.
2) it had a very intrigueing plot and characters you could really root for.
3) it's honestly a film that i think may get kids interested in our national history or history in general just like Raiders did for many of us.

it really was a fun time at the movies and i can't wait for the dvd!
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Ameera said:
I know what the critics have been saying about National Treasure. Do not, by any means, believe them! They overanalyze movies that should be simply left alone and enjoyed by the public. What matters is that the audience likes it, not the opinion of a bunch of snobs who think they know films. I just came back from this movie, and I must say that I was thoroughly entertained. It's amusing, interesting, and of course, adventurous, earning my rating of three and a half out of fours stars. I wouldn't call it an Oscar-worthy film; however, I was not looking for one.

By the way, Raffey, I think it's another one of those movies that stole our plotlines from the adventure table! ;) :p



Ameera,

I don't know much about film, but I know Bruckheimer's body of work . . . and by any measure it's pretty clear that National Treasure belongs with Bruckheimer's (not unsubstanial) group of subpar films. Here's some over-analysis for you to prove my point:

(1) Quality Action Sequences (which is what a Bruckheimer film is all about)
While the action sequences in National Treasure may not measure up to more intense/over-the-top Bruckheimer films like The Rock because the hero is an 'everyman', I'd argue that Bruckheimer has done it better before in Enemy of the State -- with a hero is who clearly more of an everyman than the Nicholas Cage character in National Treasure. The chase scenes in Enemy of the State were not over the top but yet far, far more suspensful and entertaining than anything in National Treasure. Even some of Bruckheimer's less successful movies manage at least to incorporate some style into the action sequences, like Gone in Sixty Seconds.

(2) Supporting Characters. Another signature Bruckheimer element is richly drawn and colorful characters who add to depth of the film. Guys like Steve Buscemi are regulars (Con Air and Armegeddon). For Armageddon, Bruckheimer brought in a writer simply to work over the montage that shows Bruce Willis's oil workers being round up by the Feds (a favorite is Michael Clarke Duncan riding a hog in Montana). Other memorable supporting characters include Billy Bob Thorton in Armegeddon and John Cusak in Con Air. What do we get in National Treasure? Some geeky side-kick with decent one-liners and a lousy blond female lead ?. . . and let's not forget the uninspired performances from Harvey Keitel and Jon Voight that are the dictionary definition of 'I'm here to cash my check'.

(3) Quality Subplots. Bruckheimer's action movies are a cut above the competition because he integrates compelling subplots into the storyline. For example, in Enemy of the State there's a great storyline about the hero's strained marraige because of a past relationship. In The Rock, there are simply too many to count. In Con Air, there's the great conflict between the Jon Cusack charcter with Colm Meaney's DEA agent. What do we get in National Treasure? The most tired of estranged father/son stories. Very lame.

(4) Great Villains With Motives Other Than 'I want a lot money'. In The Rock we get Ed Harris as this great tragic bad guy out to right a great wrong. In Enemy of State, there's a couple of great power hungry villains. In Con Air, John Malkovich, in one of his tastier performances, plays Cyrus 'The Virus' Grissom bent on gaining his freedom, with a twist. And what do we get in National Treasure? Some anonymous recycled bad guy looking for a lot of $$$$. Yawn.

(5) Great Comic Relief. Best example: Pirates of the Caribbean. Case closed. National Treasure's only source of comedy comes from the sidekick. His one-liners are practically voice overs. . . and while I chuckled, the one liners were nothing compared to the better Bruckheimer movies.

My biggest problem with National Treasure is that it was a fantastic concept that only got decent execution. I want a bad guy that wants more than the cash -- that's what the Die Hard series is for. I look for quality acting and supporting characters with some additional subplots that fill the lulls between the action sequences. I want a short, tightly edited movie that doesn't have easily well over five minutes of extra footage that could have been edited out. Additionally, I'd argue that the Nicholas Cage in National Treasure is the least compelling of any character played by Nicholas Cage in a Bruckheimer film (The Rock, Con Air, and Gone in Sixty Seconds) -- and I'd also argue that Cage wasn't as funny as some of the other great Brucheimer heroes. Bottom line, Bruckheimer's a machine and has a proven, known formula for successful action films. Despite the formula, however he puts out just as many dogs as anyone. When he's on his game he's the best. . . and he's clearly not his best in National Treasure.

Ameera, if you want to defend mediocrity, go right ahead. Just don't do it by being critical of others who don't share your same (low) standards.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Ameera, just try to understand, when Brody's last name is Ebert, it gets difficult to like movies that could have been better. ;)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Or is it Roeper?

Well, personally, I enjoyed it. I would reccomend it to most anyone.
It definately wasn't perfect, but for something clean to go to at the movies, I like it.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Tennessee R said:
Ameera, just try to understand, when Brody's last name is Ebert, it gets difficult to like movies that could have been better. ;)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Or is it Roeper?

Well, personally, I enjoyed it. I would reccomend it to most anyone.
It definately wasn't perfect, but for something clean to go to at the movies, I like it.

[Jokingly]Isn't one of those critcs dead??? . . . or is that the point?

Tennessee, I agree with you about the movie being decent . . . but that's the problem. It could've been great given the premise. I'll be back in line for the next Bruckheimer film . . .
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
It was very successful here in the States, it is just now going international.

A very, very good movie! I highly recommend it.
 

Redbeard

New member
I started in November here in Germany. I watched it two weeks ago and I will do so aigain on saturday. I love this movie, it's pure Indy.

Regards,
Red
 

Johan

Active member
I saw it when it first came out in November wasn't it? Anyway's I reccomend it! It you like Jerry Bruckheimer you'll like this movie.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Yes, you ought to go see it. It is a pretty good adventure movie.
I like the part about "Did Bigfoot take it?" ;)

Oh, and Giles V, yes that was an interesting read. ;)

Okay, Sorry. I didn't even read all of it.
 

Raatikainen

New member
I liked it too, even though it had some little problems here and there it's worth a watch. And it has Christopher Plummer in it!
 

ElodieJones

New member
I have see this movie too. :D
I like it. Nicolas Cage is a great actor.

But the movie is not really an adventure movie.
It is more action.
Only the end look a little bit like Indiana Jones.
 
Top