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.