Man, this cracks me up. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh. Oh I can't wait to see this.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Ooh! Ooh! Does it come to a climax in a secret underground cavern?
...
Y'know, some people said National Treasure was a rip off of The DaVinci Code, but if anything, it made Code seem plausible by comparison.
<shrug> I'll probably see this a couple of years after it comes out for a buck when I'm in the mood to shut off my brain. At least Cage tends to be watchable, even in dreck.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You must have hated Indiana Jones.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
"Now, now...you just hate fun movies, don't you?"
But seriously, what Lyrhawn said...the first NT was more an example to B movie action adventure thrills than it was an imitation of Dan Brown's stuff.
(Plus, one actually likes the characters in NT. I've yet to see anyone say they liked a Dan Brown book for the characters.)
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
This is taking B movies to a new level. The recap was ridiculous.
Oh, did anyone else think that Cage sounded bored out of his mind while doing the narration?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The Indiana Jones movies are actually rather a different breed. They pay homage to the pulp adventure stories of their era, they build on characters as much as action set pieces, and they presuppose the existence of supernatural powers.
National Treasure was more of a caper film. (I mean, what else can you call a movie that rotates around stealing the Declaration of Independence?) For me, with every level of conspiracy that's remained undiscovered, every Rube Goldberg device that's kept working for centuries, my "Aw c'mon" sense increased. And the characters are basically cut-outs to get from action scene to plot contrivance to action scene. There's *just* enough resemblance to the world we actually live in to make the ridiculousness jarring.
In short, I enjoyed the IJ movies (well, Raiders and Crusade, anyway. Temple was more a movie to endure than enjoy.) I may well even enjoy the next one, if they can get it out before Ford dies. I don't expect to enjoy NT without sleep deprivation, alcohol consumption, snarky friends, or a fairly desperate need to unwind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It didn't rotate around stealing the DoI, that was part of the plot, but it wasn't the whole point of it. The whole point was a little boy who believed in a legend his grandfather had told him and spent most of his adult life trying against reason and scorn to make it come true.
It was about some other things too, like his relationship with his father, and his excitement about history (which I have to admit, is something I identify with heavily).
If stealing the DoI had been the whole point, the movie would have ended a third of the way through the movie when he did it. In some ways I don't really see how it is different, in genre, than Crusade. You have a man and his father, a sidekick, a woman (well there's always a woman in IJ, depends on whether or not she ends up being an evil Nazi or not), and the quest to find a holy grail (or Holy Grail in IJ's case). Along the way they find hidden chambers, like in New York, or beneath that library in IJ. And discover something that everyone else laughed at their family for, thinking that it was a myth and couldn't possibly exist, and they both raced against an enemy that wanted to use it for evil purposes.
And like IJ, it's fun, and it's funny, but there's also action and adventure. The difference I suppose, would in fact be that one doesn't have supernatural powers, but considering how small a plot point that really is, until the very, very, very end of Crusade, I don't see it as being the big difference maker.
If it's not your kind of movie, then hey, it's not your kind of movie. It just strikes me as really, really weird to put it down that much.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The first movie was hilarious in a painful way. I lost 15 IQ oints in those two hours. Once I turned off my brain completely and did not hope for logic, characters, meaning, good dialogue, cleverness, or plausibility, I enjoyed it. The visual look is pretty. NC is as homely as all get out, which is why the movie ranked beneath the similarly-made The Mummy.
The second movie looks to be more of the same. I about laughed myself out of my chair when I saw "Library of Congress" lit up all ominous-like. I actually work at the Library of Congress, and this was too funny. You know it's bad when the trailer has glaring logic problems. It's the Library of Congress - documents belonging to the executive branch are not stored here. They are not kidding about the separation of powers. Any magic book belonging to only presidents would legally be available to any congressman the moment it was received by the library.
[ September 10, 2007, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Javert Hugo is so intent on letting us know that we can only enjoy the film if we're not as cool as him that he said it twice. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I loved both of the Mummy movies. National Treasure...to me, it took itself a little too seriously. Well, and also I'm very sick of Nicolas Cage's "YAY AMERICA" movies.
Watching Next almost made me burst into tears. I had to do it, but it still made me physically uncomfortable.
-pH
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The "American" things praised in the film were the centuries old relics and some long-dead men.
The current American country wasn't portrayed in a particularly "yay" sense. In fact, they were the misguided heavies out to stop our heroes. Just sayin'.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Nicholas Cage does "YAY AMERICA" movies? Hmmm, guess I missed those parts. But then again, I remember watching way old movies that are all sorts of "America this and that." So to me it just doesn't seem like it. I'm sooo gonna wait for this movie to hit Vongo.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The whole point was a little boy who believed in a legend his grandfather had told him and spent most of his adult life trying against reason and scorn to make it come true.
That's the movie I saw.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
JH -
My impression from the trailer was that the President's secret book was hidden in his desk, not in the Library of Congress.
And I agree with Puffy, the founding fathers were praised in the film, not present day America. It's a movie that celebrates history.
I don't think you had to turn your brain off to enjoy it. Nowhere but on Hatrack do I see the kind of insane nitpicking. Some of the greatest movies and tv shows of all time are things that if objectively viewed I bet the gripers on Hatrack would say you have to turn your brain off to enjoy. And I don't think I'm lowering my standards to enjoy a movie, and I think we should have high standards, I just think nitpicking something to DEATH sucks ALL the fun out of movies, ALL of the fun. And that's what movies are supposed to be, on some level, fun.
I'm almost afraid to open half of Puffy's movie threads, because while I enjoy the news about new movies, it's the cavalcade of nitpicking that ruins half the opinions on this board for me. I learned a long time ago not to listen to people's opinions for movies, unless something looked bad to me and all the opinions were good, then I'd at least give it a chance.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Javert Hugo is a she!
And i didn't think National Treasure was *quite* that stupid, kat. But i can see why someone might
edit: funny typo
[ September 09, 2007, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If it's not your kind of movie, then hey, it's not your kind of movie. It just strikes me as really, really weird to put it down that much.
Fair 'nuff. I don't hold anything against anyone for enjoying NT; it and IJ just occupy very different spaces in my mind.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)