list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around National Treasure: Book of Secrets on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/National_Treasure_Book_of_Secrets/297925/default.aspx Title: National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Year: 2007
Director: Jon Turteltaub
Plot: In this adventure-filled sequel to the 2004 blockbuster National Treasure, Nicolas Cage reprises his role as artifact hunter and archaeologist extraordinaire Ben Franklin Gates. In this outing, Gates learns of his own family's implication in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. Gates must then locate the 18 missing pages to Booth's diary, not only to clear his family's name, but to unearth and connect several secrets, buried within the book, that point to a massive, global conspiracy. The film co-stars Jon Voight, Harvey Keitel, and Helen Mirren as Ben's mother. Jerry Bruckheimer returns as producer. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 89
Number of Lists: 17
Number of blog posts: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:42:12 GMTNational Treasure: Book of Secrets2007Jon TurteltaubIn this adventure-filled sequel to the 2004 blockbuster <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/229290/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>National Treasure</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____10155/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nicolas Cage</a> reprises his role as artifact hunter and archaeologist <I>extraordinaire</I> Ben Franklin Gates. In this outing, Gates learns of his own family's implication in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. Gates must then locate the 18 missing pages to Booth's diary, not only to clear his family's name, but to unearth and connect several secrets, buried within the book, that point to a massive, global conspiracy. The film co-stars <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___115561/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jon Voight</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____37381/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harvey Keitel</a>, and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____49576/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Helen Mirren</a> as Ben's mother. <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____83309/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jerry Bruckheimer</a> returns as producer. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide89Tag Target (>10)1783http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s297925.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/National_Treasure_Book_of_Secrets/297925/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/26/34425.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 10:01:07 PM
Body: It was interesting to follow-up the real Indiana Jones with these movies, which features one of the most prominent Indy-Lite characters to be developed in recent years. Nicholas Cage and his cast of cronies run, jump and ponder amiably through Book of Secrets, which I actually watched first, as they try to stay one step ahead of the bad guys, who are after the same City of Gold that the good guys are. There’s nothing that they’re asked to do by the plot that’s all that engaging and the strength of the film is dependent largely by the action just never slowing down enough for the audience to actually think about what’s going on. If they were given that opportunity some bad things would begin to happen, including them starting to likely laugh at the action unfolding on-screen. While enjoyable enough as some fluffy entertainment there’s nothing beyond the surface layer. It’s like reading an early Grisham novel in that all the characters are dependent on everyone else being as illogical as they are but hey, look at the car chase! I had not, upon seeing this one, seen the first movie but that’s certainly alright in that the character development is so superficial you can still get to know everyone and who they are and why they’re in the situations they’re in pretty quickly and easily. Decent enough if you find yourself needing something on in the background while you’re catching up on some emails but certainly not meaty entertainment by any stretch. It was after watching #2 that I finally caught up with the first National Treasure and found it to be almost the exact same movie as the second installment. There are the same familial issues that Cage’s character is working out, the same Mission: Impossible tech sequences that are pulled off by the nerdy sidekick and the same romantic arc that goes on between Cage and the female lead, although in the first one it’s them falling in love in the second it’s them coming back together after a falling out. In thinking back on the movies it’s almost impossible to differentiate between the two. If I think about a scene it takes me a minute to remember whether it comes from the first or the second. I basically have to try and visualize either Ed Harris or Sean Bean in the bad guy role (though their motivations aren’t so much “bad” as “counter to those of Cage and his altruistic gang”) in order to decide which is which. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:01:07 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/26/2008 10:01:07 PMIt was interesting to follow-up the real Indiana Jones with these movies, which features one of the most prominent Indy-Lite characters to be developed in recent years. Nicholas Cage and his cast of cronies run, jump and ponder amiably through Book of Secrets, which I actually watched first, as they try to stay one step ahead of the bad guys, who are after the same City of Gold that the good guys are. There’s nothing that they’re asked to do by the plot that’s all that engaging and the strength of the film is dependent largely by the action just never slowing down enough for the audience to actually think about what’s going on. If they were given that opportunity some bad things would begin to happen, including them starting to likely laugh at the action unfolding on-screen. While enjoyable enough as some fluffy entertainment there’s nothing beyond the surface layer. It’s like reading an early Grisham novel in that all the characters are dependent on everyone else being as illogical as they are but hey, look at the car chase! I had not, upon seeing this one, seen the first movie but that’s certainly alright in that the character development is so superficial you can still get to know everyone and who they are and why they’re in the situations they’re in pretty quickly and easily. Decent enough if you find yourself needing something on in the background while you’re catching up on some emails but certainly not meaty entertainment by any stretch. It was after watching #2 that I finally caught up with the first National Treasure and found it to be almost the exact same movie as the second installment. There are the same familial issues that Cage’s character is working out, the same Mission: Impossible tech sequences that are pulled off by the nerdy sidekick and the same romantic arc that goes on between Cage and the female lead, although in the first one it’s them falling in love in the second it’s them coming back together after a falling out. In thinking back on the movies it’s almost impossible to differentiate between the two. If I think about a scene it takes me a minute to remember whether it comes from the first or the second. I basically have to try and visualize either Ed Harris or Sean Bean in the bad guy role (though their motivations aren’t so much “bad” as “counter to those of Cage and his altruistic gang”) in order to decide which is which. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30703.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 3:24:08 PM
Body: When Helen Mirren signed on to "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," I laughed. Why would an Oscar and Emmy winner choose to be in the sequel to a movie like "National Treasure?" Surely she had something better to do--like meet the queen of England. How insipid and pointless could a movie be which used history and geography as markers for treasure? And then I sat down for the movie. Know what? It´s not half bad. Legend has it that a burned map from the Civil War included the first clue to the greatest treasure of all time, the Lost City of Gold. Ben Gates (Nicholas Cage), determined to clear his family´s name, sets off for the treasure which, presumably, will clear the name. See, history says one of Gates´ ancestors was in the process of deciphering the map when Abraham Lincoln was shot. With his ex-wife, assistant, and divorced parents in tow (not to mention a stock villain played by Ed Harris looking to write a different story for his own family), the Lost City of Gold becomes a reality. Look, I´m not going to suggest "Book of Secrets" is terribly brilliant or award worthy or in the top twenty movies of the year. What it is, though, is a fun, inoffensive, PG-rated adventure. Pure and simple. Here is a movie competing with "Sweeney Todd" opening weekend which the entire family can see, not to mention enjoy. There´s a little bit of action, a little bit of humor, a little bit of romance and a whole lot of history. No blood is spilled, I don´t think there´s a profane word in the entire production and the ostensible villain, Mitch Wilkinson, isn´t out to rule the world. No, his goal is something much smaller and personal. He wants his family to be absolved of the Lincoln assassination. How can anyone really argue with that? Without having seen the first film, I will admit to be being taken with the sequel. There are times I did roll my eyes, especially in light of how quickly Gates and company figured out each clue, not to mention the encyclopedia-like mind he possesses. He seemingly knows everything there is to know about history, from dates and places to people, events, legends. While not wholly improbable, it would have been nice to see him consult a book before the "eureka" moment. (To be fair, though, Emily-Mirren is called in to decipher carvings on a wooden plank). Each clue is so obvious, so public, that one would think someone would have noticed it by now, understood the meaning and found the City of Gold. For instance, one of the first clue´s points to the Statue of Liberty. Well, not the statue sitting in New York, but another on in Paris. It seems the mind behind the project, Edouard Rene Lefevre de Laboulaye, called the version of Lady Liberty in Paris "his" lady. And sure enough, sitting smack dab engraved on the torch is the next marker. The movie wants us all to believe no one in history has ever seen the words, let alone figuring out what they mean. The same logic can be applied to the beginning of the climax, which I won´t spoil here. How does a cavern and structure as big as the one depicted go unnoticed for over one hundred years? There´s no force field at work, no special technical mumbo-jumbo. We´re supposed to believe excavators, scientists and satellites are just plain incompetent? I don´t mean to harp on the issue; it doesn´t in any way destroy the quality of the film and, in some respects, the lack of explanation is welcome. A great number of films have been brought down by their need to work out the scientific mumbo-jumbo when they really didn´t have to. All that aside, I keep coming back to the same central idea: "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is fun. The actors are clearly having fun working together in a project which takes itself seriously yet not too seriously. Jon Voight and Mirren have perhaps the most fun in their arguments with each other, using the others words as a catalyst for a new disagreement. Despite the fact they haven´t seen other in 32 years, there is still a level of deep respect and love between the two; both actors embrace the idea--as well as the mad cap plot-by not trying to "act" for the camera. Instead, they are real people as real people might act in their situation. There is a key to understanding and enjoying the movie, though. It´s not to take it seriously. At first, it seems as though the entire plot is going to be rooted in reality. Events seem to hang together as well as ca be expected and no single character does anything out of the ordinary. As the plot moves on, however, it becomes more outlandish and unbelievable. From kidnapping the president to getting inside the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, the stakes are raised and the danger heightened every time out. Just how far can this group go before they´re caught . . . if ever? Will they "beat" Wilkinson? None of it really matters, actually. "Book of Secrets" has been compared to the "Indiana Jones" series. In reality, it´s closer in style to the "Carmen Sandiego" series of video games. Clues have to be pieced together to come up with a new location, at which time the same process happens all over the again. Indy used a combination of brains and brawn to recover the Arc; Gates and his cohorts don´t have the brute strength of Jones. So they improvise. Turning on fire alarms in Buckingam Palace. Infiltrating the White House Easter Egg Hunt. None of their stunts-really-necessitates great strength, only the brains to figure it all out. I´ve purposely gone light on the specifics of the plot in order to maintain the fun and excitement which comes from "National Treasure." This is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, yet it feels radically different from "Armageddon" or any of his television dramas. Why? The stakes aren´t life and death (or end of the world-level) nor do we want to recoil from the screen in horror over a brutal death. And that´s the charm: the film is completely unpretentious, existing solely to be entertaining and nothing more. As if to beat a dead horse, I´ll say it one more time: "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is fun. Even at 124 minutes (official run time), the action never gets stale and we don´t lose interest in any of the characters. If anything, we want to see more of Emily and Patrick, a couple more scenes of Justin Bartha´s comically ingenious Riley and the resumption of Ben and Abigail´s relationship. Because of the sheer entertainment value without the pompousness of a History Channel documentary of "Book of Secrets," it rates a 7 out of 10.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:24:08 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 3:24:08 PMWhen Helen Mirren signed on to "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," I laughed. Why would an Oscar and Emmy winner choose to be in the sequel to a movie like "National Treasure?" Surely she had something better to do--like meet the queen of England. How insipid and pointless could a movie be which used history and geography as markers for treasure? And then I sat down for the movie. Know what? It&acute;s not half bad. Legend has it that a burned map from the Civil War included the first clue to the greatest treasure of all time, the Lost City of Gold. Ben Gates (Nicholas Cage), determined to clear his family&acute;s name, sets off for the treasure which, presumably, will clear the name. See, history says one of Gates&acute; ancestors was in the process of deciphering the map when Abraham Lincoln was shot. With his ex-wife, assistant, and divorced parents in tow (not to mention a stock villain played by Ed Harris looking to write a different story for his own family), the Lost City of Gold becomes a reality. Look, I&acute;m not going to suggest "Book of Secrets" is terribly brilliant or award worthy or in the top twenty movies of the year. What it is, though, is a fun, inoffensive, PG-rated adventure. Pure and simple. Here is a movie competing with "Sweeney Todd" opening weekend which the entire family can see, not to mention enjoy. There&acute;s a little bit of action, a little bit of humor, a little bit of romance and a whole lot of history. No blood is spilled, I don&acute;t think there&acute;s a profane word in the entire production and the ostensible villain, Mitch Wilkinson, isn&acute;t out to rule the world. No, his goal is something much smaller and personal. He wants his family to be absolved of the Lincoln assassination. How can anyone really argue with that? Without having seen the first film, I will admit to be being taken with the sequel. There are times I did roll my eyes, especially in light of how quickly Gates and company figured out each clue, not to mention the encyclopedia-like mind he possesses. He seemingly knows everything there is to know about history, from dates and places to people, events, legends. While not wholly improbable, it would have been nice to see him consult a book before the "eureka" moment. (To be fair, though, Emily-Mirren is called in to decipher carvings on a wooden plank). Each clue is so obvious, so public, that one would think someone would have noticed it by now, understood the meaning and found the City of Gold. For instance, one of the first clue&acute;s points to the Statue of Liberty. Well, not the statue sitting in New York, but another on in Paris. It seems the mind behind the project, Edouard Rene Lefevre de Laboulaye, called the version of Lady Liberty in Paris "his" lady. And sure enough, sitting smack dab engraved on the torch is the next marker. The movie wants us all to believe no one in history has ever seen the words, let alone figuring out what they mean. The same logic can be applied to the beginning of the climax, which I won&acute;t spoil here. How does a cavern and structure as big as the one depicted go unnoticed for over one hundred years? There&acute;s no force field at work, no special technical mumbo-jumbo. We&acute;re supposed to believe excavators, scientists and satellites are just plain incompetent? I don&acute;t mean to harp on the issue; it doesn&acute;t in any way destroy the quality of the film and, in some respects, the lack of explanation is welcome. A great number of films have been brought down by their need to work out the scientific mumbo-jumbo when they really didn&acute;t have to. All that aside, I keep coming back to the same central idea: "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is fun. The actors are clearly having fun working together in a project which takes itself seriously yet not too seriously. Jon Voight and Mirren have perhaps the most fun in their arguments with each other, using the others words as a catalyst for a new disagreement. Despite the fact they haven&acute;t seen other in 32 years, there is still a level of deep respect and love between the two; both actors embrace the idea--as well as the mad cap plot-by not trying to "act" for the camera. Instead, they are real people as real people might act in their situation. There is a key to understanding and enjoying the movie, though. It&acute;s not to take it seriously. At first, it seems as though the entire plot is going to be rooted in reality. Events seem to hang together as well as ca be expected and no single character does anything out of the ordinary. As the plot moves on, however, it becomes more outlandish and unbelievable. From kidnapping the president to getting inside the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, the stakes are raised and the danger heightened every time out. Just how far can this group go before they&acute;re caught . . . if ever? Will they "beat" Wilkinson? None of it really matters, actually. "Book of Secrets" has been compared to the "Indiana Jones" series. In reality, it&acute;s closer in style to the "Carmen Sandiego" series of video games. Clues have to be pieced together to come up with a new location, at which time the same process happens all over the again. Indy used a combination of brains and brawn to recover the Arc; Gates and his cohorts don&acute;t have the brute strength of Jones. So they improvise. Turning on fire alarms in Buckingam Palace. Infiltrating the White House Easter Egg Hunt. None of their stunts-really-necessitates great strength, only the brains to figure it all out. I&acute;ve purposely gone light on the specifics of the plot in order to maintain the fun and excitement which comes from "National Treasure." This is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, yet it feels radically different from "Armageddon" or any of his television dramas. Why? The stakes aren&acute;t life and death (or end of the world-level) nor do we want to recoil from the screen in horror over a brutal death. And that&acute;s the charm: the film is completely unpretentious, existing solely to be entertaining and nothing more. As if to beat a dead horse, I&acute;ll say it one more time: "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is fun. Even at 124 minutes (official run time), the action never gets stale and we don&acute;t lose interest in any of the characters. If anything, we want to see more of Emily and Patrick, a couple more scenes of Justin Bartha&acute;s comically ingenious Riley and the resumption of Ben and Abigail&acute;s relationship. Because of the sheer entertainment value without the pompousness of a History Channel documentary of "Book of Secrets," it rates a 7 out of 10. http://www.spout.com/blogs/kickstandsup/archive/2008/1/7/23600.aspx Post By: kickstandsup
Post To: kickstandsup Blog
Post Date: 1/7/2008 2:04:23 PM
Body: National Treasure - 7 of 10 Good action but too far fetched, even for me. There were some very good action scenes and it did keep ones interest. The first National Treasure was ok. I just didn't really like this. It was almost like they were lacking a story line, so they pumped up the special effects to make up for it. I would expect that with a Rambo movie, but was expecting more. Would be a decent rental or dollar movie...
]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:04:23 GMTkickstandsupkickstandsup Blog1/7/2008 2:04:23 PMNational Treasure - 7 of 10 Good action but too far fetched, even for me. There were some very good action scenes and it did keep ones interest. The first National Treasure was ok. I just didn&#39;t really like this. It was almost like they were lacking a story line, so they pumped up the special effects to make up for it. I would expect that with a Rambo movie, but was expecting more. Would be a decent rental or dollar movie... http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/7/23592.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2008 12:00:56 PM
Body: David Pogue wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times last week about the marketing of National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Masked as something of an ad for the Internet Movie Database, the article dissects the movie’s trailers, telling us about the many clips that aren’t actually in the cut we see at the theater. Is this a form of false advertising? Pogue wonders how far Hollywood can take this type of manipulation: Rearranging scenes in the trailer is one thing. But what about this business of putting stuff in the trailer — a *lot* of stuff — that isn???t in the movie at all? If they can get away with ???National Treasure???-style misrepresentation, what???s to stop other moviemakers from putting special effects, witty lines, exotic locales and hot-looking actors into *their* trailers, just to get us to go to a movie that doesn???t have any of those things? Well, that’s exactly what Justin Lin’s Annapolis did a couple years back. As you can see from the trailer above, the movie promises many scenes involving aircraft carriers and other Naval ships, as well as flying jets, all that could be expected to be in exciting action sequences. Yet Annapolis never really expands its story beyond the U.S. Naval Academy, and so anyone looking for that action movie must have been disappointed. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:00:56 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2008 12:00:56 PM David Pogue wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times last week about the marketing of National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Masked as something of an ad for the Internet Movie Database, the article dissects the movie’s trailers, telling us about the many clips that aren’t actually in the cut we see at the theater. Is this a form of false advertising? Pogue wonders how far Hollywood can take this type of manipulation: Rearranging scenes in the trailer is one thing. But what about this business of putting stuff in the trailer — a *lot* of stuff — that isn???t in the movie at all? If they can get away with ???National Treasure???-style misrepresentation, what???s to stop other moviemakers from putting special effects, witty lines, exotic locales and hot-looking actors into *their* trailers, just to get us to go to a movie that doesn???t have any of those things? Well, that’s exactly what Justin Lin’s Annapolis did a couple years back. As you can see from the trailer above, the movie promises many scenes involving aircraft carriers and other Naval ships, as well as flying jets, all that could be expected to be in exciting action sequences. Yet Annapolis never really expands its story beyond the U.S. Naval Academy, and so anyone looking for that action movie must have been disappointed. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/dickbuist/archive/2008/1/2/23429.aspx Post By: dickbuist
Post To: dickbuist Blog
Post Date: 1/2/2008 11:17:41 AM
Body: This film wants to be an Indiana Jones type film but falls far far short in my opinion. The script is lousy, lines are stupid, the interaction between characters is awkward, there's not enough action. The scene in the water (near the end) sums everything up for me - a cast of great actors just swirling around - someone please flush this one.
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:17:41 GMTdickbuistdickbuist Blog1/2/2008 11:17:41 AMThis film wants to be an Indiana Jones type film but falls far far short in my opinion. The script is lousy, lines are stupid, the interaction between characters is awkward, there&#39;s not enough action. The scene in the water (near the end) sums everything up for me - a cast of great actors just swirling around - someone please flush this one. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2007/12/31/23372.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 12/31/2007 1:02:46 PM
Body: ... IF they had added one word to the title to make it National Treasure: Presidents' Book of Secrets.But It's Still 'Just a Movie'That's one of the problems with movies 'nowadays' (we say in the grumpy-old-man vernacular)—people don't take movies as "just movies" anymore. That's probably why Bruckheimer didn't name the movie "'Presidents'' Book of Secrets" ... because then it would be seen as 'another conspiracy-theory movie,' and that's not what it was.It was another 'Indiana Jones'—which itself was another patch in the great fabric of George Lucas's history. (George Lucas has a place reserved in Jerry Bruckheimer's heaven.)But the movie needed the conspiracy-theory to make it 'realer than Disney's Utopia.' I can tell, because my friend--who fell asleep during the conspiracy-theorizing beginnings of the movie (we went to a late showing, and he had been up since 5:45 that morning), and who is experienced enough to say "been there, done that" to most conspiracy-theory--complained about the movie's fantastic idiocy most of the drive home.Bruckheimer's Set-Up Makes the Unbelieveable AcceptableOne instance of otherwise-unbelievable events stands out: when Ben Gates gets his lady-friend to take him to the White House Easter-egg-roll, they use her Secret Service guy-friend to sneak into the Oval Office. By knocking him unconscious and stealing his keys? No; By bribing him with a night with the lady-friend and all the money he could imagine? No!Ben and lady-friend go up to the agent, comment that lady-friend had always wanted to be inside the Oval Office and then DARE the agent to sneak them in ("Awwh, betcha couldn't! Betcha couldn't! Neener-neener-nee-nerrr!)Any Secret Service agent who wanted to keep his job would have--the second he saw lady-friend, before she or Ben started talking--gone to 'secure' the President and/or his family! Were there any examples of professional government-workers? Not that I saw!The Bad Thing? Bruckheimer's Film-Making is So Good that Government-Workers Will Think That's How Things Are Actually Done!You might think I'm brown-nosing there--and maybe I am, a little ... a part in a Bruckheimer movie is bound to come with massive royalties (both in terms of any percentage of the cash and in terms of the massively-good karma!)--but that's also a comment on the general intellect of the masses—how much did you care about 'Global Warming' before An Inconvenient Truth? And how much after (especially if you never saw it)?Now, just imagine if a good film-maker had been involved! Actually, don't; if you do, 'Global Warming' might be revealed as the extremist farce it actually is! (I know that 'there's all kinds of "evidence" that "the ocean levels are rising," "the seals are suffocating" and "the forests are in flames"; but nature has a way of always balancing things out, and humans have a way of always finding the above-water end of the balance.)The message we think needs to be continuously put in movie-after-movie: people survive!Questions? Comments? You'll only be heard after you start the message-relay below! Originally posted on:The Enlightened Xombee
]]>Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:02:46 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good12/31/2007 1:02:46 PM... IF they had added one word to the title to make it National Treasure: Presidents' Book of Secrets.But It's Still 'Just a Movie'That's one of the problems with movies 'nowadays' (we say in the grumpy-old-man vernacular)—people don't take movies as "just movies" anymore. That's probably why Bruckheimer didn't name the movie "'Presidents'' Book of Secrets" ... because then it would be seen as 'another conspiracy-theory movie,' and that's not what it was.It was another 'Indiana Jones'—which itself was another patch in the great fabric of George Lucas's history. (George Lucas has a place reserved in Jerry Bruckheimer's heaven.)But the movie needed the conspiracy-theory to make it 'realer than Disney's Utopia.' I can tell, because my friend--who fell asleep during the conspiracy-theorizing beginnings of the movie (we went to a late showing, and he had been up since 5:45 that morning), and who is experienced enough to say "been there, done that" to most conspiracy-theory--complained about the movie's fantastic idiocy most of the drive home.Bruckheimer's Set-Up Makes the Unbelieveable AcceptableOne instance of otherwise-unbelievable events stands out: when Ben Gates gets his lady-friend to take him to the White House Easter-egg-roll, they use her Secret Service guy-friend to sneak into the Oval Office. By knocking him unconscious and stealing his keys? No; By bribing him with a night with the lady-friend and all the money he could imagine? No!Ben and lady-friend go up to the agent, comment that lady-friend had always wanted to be inside the Oval Office and then DARE the agent to sneak them in ("Awwh, betcha couldn't! Betcha couldn't! Neener-neener-nee-nerrr!)Any Secret Service agent who wanted to keep his job would have--the second he saw lady-friend, before she or Ben started talking--gone to 'secure' the President and/or his family! Were there any examples of professional government-workers? Not that I saw!The Bad Thing? Bruckheimer's Film-Making is So Good that Government-Workers Will Think That's How Things Are Actually Done!You might think I'm brown-nosing there--and maybe I am, a little ... a part in a Bruckheimer movie is bound to come with massive royalties (both in terms of any percentage of the cash and in terms of the massively-good karma!)--but that's also a comment on the general intellect of the masses—how much did you care about 'Global Warming' before An Inconvenient Truth? And how much after (especially if you never saw it)?Now, just imagine if a good film-maker had been involved! Actually, don't; if you do, 'Global Warming' might be revealed as the extremist farce it actually is! (I know that 'there's all kinds of "evidence" that "the ocean levels are rising," "the seals are suffocating" and "the forests are in flames"; but nature has a way of always balancing things out, and humans have a way of always finding the above-water end of the balance.)The message we think needs to be continuously put in movie-after-movie: people survive!Questions? Comments? You'll only be heard after you start the message-relay below! Originally posted on:The Enlightened Xombee http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/12/26/23227.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/26/2007 1:00:29 PM
Body: Over the weekend, a few??critic groups??united in naming No Country for Old Men the best??movie of 2007.??St. Louis, Utah and Florida all love the Coen Bros. movie, as well as Ellen Page, Amy Ryan,??Daniel Day-Lewis and Ratatouille. They managed to mix it up a little bit, though, so as not to be completely identical/redundant/unnecessary. I’d give the most hugs to the gang in Utah for honoring The King of Kong if only they hadn’t disappointed me with their choice for best actress runner-up: Amy Adams. If I was booked to attend that little film festival of theirs next month, I’d totally change my mind and boycott. People just don’t know the lengths I’ll go to complain about this Enchanted kudos crap. Not surprisingly, National Treasure: Book of Secrets topped the holiday weekend box office with $65 million. I would have gone to see it, but instead I hung out at JFK airport for hours on end Sunday night and watched parts of Con Air on my iPod. I’ve decided that Nic Cage is a lot better suited for the small-small screen. Too bad such a strong opening means he won’t be making direct-to-iPod movies any time soon.?? Perhaps??this is??a sign that studios will stop trying to??find “the next Harry Potter franchise” and begin trying to find “the next I Am Legend.”: Potter actor Robert Pattinson (”Cedric Diggory”) will star opposite Kristen??Stewart in Catherine Hardwicke’s teen vampire flick, Twilight. Too bad the Hollywood Reporter already gave us this story two weeks ago; too bad vampire movies have already been a monstrous trend in Hollywood; and too bad studios will never stop looking for “the next Harry Potter franchise.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/26/2007 1:00:29 PM Over the weekend, a few??critic groups??united in naming No Country for Old Men the best??movie of 2007.??St. Louis, Utah and Florida all love the Coen Bros. movie, as well as Ellen Page, Amy Ryan,??Daniel Day-Lewis and Ratatouille. They managed to mix it up a little bit, though, so as not to be completely identical/redundant/unnecessary. I’d give the most hugs to the gang in Utah for honoring The King of Kong if only they hadn’t disappointed me with their choice for best actress runner-up: Amy Adams. If I was booked to attend that little film festival of theirs next month, I’d totally change my mind and boycott. People just don’t know the lengths I’ll go to complain about this Enchanted kudos crap. Not surprisingly, National Treasure: Book of Secrets topped the holiday weekend box office with $65 million. I would have gone to see it, but instead I hung out at JFK airport for hours on end Sunday night and watched parts of Con Air on my iPod. I’ve decided that Nic Cage is a lot better suited for the small-small screen. Too bad such a strong opening means he won’t be making direct-to-iPod movies any time soon.?? Perhaps??this is??a sign that studios will stop trying to??find “the next Harry Potter franchise” and begin trying to find “the next I Am Legend.”: Potter actor Robert Pattinson (”Cedric Diggory”) will star opposite Kristen??Stewart in Catherine Hardwicke’s teen vampire flick, Twilight. Too bad the Hollywood Reporter already gave us this story two weeks ago; too bad vampire movies have already been a monstrous trend in Hollywood; and too bad studios will never stop looking for “the next Harry Potter franchise.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jbecher/archive/2007/11/21/21894.aspx Post By: Jbecher
Post To: Jbecher Blog
Post Date: 11/21/2007 7:01:08 AM
Body: I just watched national treasure again and realized how much I liked that movie - read about it on spout (National Treasure). While watching the film they were promoting the new National Treasure 2 (National treasure - Book of Secrets) I am actually excited to see this movie. Originally posted on:Jimiz.net - Jim Becher on the web
]]>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:01:08 GMTJbecherJbecher Blog11/21/2007 7:01:08 AMI just watched national treasure again and realized how much I liked that movie - read about it on spout (National Treasure). While watching the film they were promoting the new National Treasure 2 (National treasure - Book of Secrets) I am actually excited to see this movie. Originally posted on:Jimiz.net - Jim Becher on the web http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT62892271139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/paris/MemberTagFilms.aspxparis
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:09:48 GMT595294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conspiracy/MemberTagFilms.aspxconspiracy
Number of films tagged: 524

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT5244894Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/history/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistory
Number of films tagged: 999

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:15:22 GMT99948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxsequel
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 171

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:48 GMT12646171Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbook
Number of films tagged: 683

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 114

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:55:43 GMT68345114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/france/MemberTagFilms.aspxfrance
Number of films tagged: 932

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 97

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:04 GMT9324297Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/england/MemberTagFilms.aspxengland
Number of films tagged: 64

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 83

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:13:04 GMT644183Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/police/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolice
Number of films tagged: 3104

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 172

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:56:49 GMT310437172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/treasure/MemberTagFilms.aspxtreasure
Number of films tagged: 747

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 51

]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:40:33 GMT7473551Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/London/MemberTagFilms.aspxLondon
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 55

]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:18:09 GMT463055Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/america/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerica
Number of films tagged: 1215

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:42 GMT12152687Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gold/MemberTagFilms.aspxgold
Number of films tagged: 735

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 35

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:39:15 GMT7352435Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ridiculous/MemberTagFilms.aspxridiculous
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 29

]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:30:57 GMT272229Tag