A Lenda do Tesouro Perdido: Livro dos Segredos

I really liked the first movie with these characters but I got frustrated with this sequel. I was expecting much more intelligent puzzles and breathtaking adventure. Instead this movie is a perfect example of a sugarcoated adventure for family viewing in a lazy Saturday night in DVD in pijamas snacking microwave popcorn.

The plot is weak and far from plausible. There are the iconic characters (the smart hero and his love/hate girlfriend, the funny hero's assistant, the divorced hero's parents, the bad but not so bad guy, the good cop and so on). It's too much cliché for a single movie for allowing it to be a good one.

This definitely isn't a "Top 10" adventure movie. It's OK for viewing with the kids and just it.

The follow up to the 2004 box office surprise "National Treasure" is everything you'd expect. Thank goodness. It should come as no surprise that the conspiracy-based code-cracking mystery adventure is still just as hot as it was in the "year of "The Da Vinci Code."" There is nothing new, nothing special or unexpected about "Book of Secrets" only Ed Harris replacing Sean Bean as the rival treasure seeker. That, and the addition of Helen Mirren as Nicholas Cage's mother to strengthen the film's female roles thanks to leading lady Diane Kruger's utter mediocrity. The film has all the same history mystery you remember, the national (and now international) landmarks, the witty inserts from Justin Bartha's character Riley, and of course the preposterous plans for Benjamin Franklin Gates to get whatever he's after. In other words, if you're looking for something different, more clever, or intellectually stimulating, read the Da Vinci Code again and don't bother with this film. If you want more quirky, ridiculous, treasure-seeking fun that picks up right where the last left off, this is your ticket. ~Steven C

There are a select few individuals out there that seem to garner everything they know about life from movies, be it political viewpoints, philosophy, etc. and find it objectionable when a movie is produced purely for entertainment purposes. I can't speak for everyone, but as for myself, I don't want to have to pay to have yet another political viewpoint shoved down my throat (CNN/Foxnews broadcasts 24/7 for that), or to be beaten over the head with with the life philosophy of some bazillionaire producer/director that lives in the Ivory Tower that is Hollywood. I can read Zarathustra, the Tao Tse Ching, or even the Bible for that.

When I go to see a movie, I just wan to be entertained, and National Treasure BoS delivers there. Not the best movie I have ever seen, but it was an entertaining escape from reality for two hours and that it was I pay my money for. For me, the best part of the movie wasn't Nic Cage. He has done so many movies, it seems like he has gotten to the point where he is just punching the clock. He doesn't stand out on film, but he isn't horrible either and that is what we get from him here - a very pedestrian workmanlike performance. I would like to think he has another touchstone performance in him like the one he gave in "Leaving Las Vegas", but if he can still keep getting several million per movie just being average, why put in the effort. Diane Kruger was also pretty average. She shined in the first movie, but not so much here.

For me, John Voight, Justin Bartha and Helen Mirren were what made the movie good. John Voight was great. His character was both funny and endearing and the synergy between him and Mirren was palpable. Mirren showed once again why she is arguably the best actress in the business. Justin Bartha was a scene stealer and had some of the funniest lines (along with Voight).

National Treasure: Book of Secrets is a decent film. Nothing more, nothing less. I came out of the theater content, and yet by the next hour I'd forgotten much of what had taken place. Such is the case for most films now, however.

Compared to the first film, the plot is weak (certainly not as tightly drawn as the former) but the energy is the same and the humor is the same, and overall it's still as watchable as the first. Helen Mirren and Ed Harris were also very good, and somewhat surprising, additions to the cast.

Essentially, the movie is on the ridiculous/unbelievable side, but it's worth a watch. I don't think I'd pay another 10 dollars to see it again in theaters, but waiting for a rental will do.

I will keep it short and simple. Just watched it, paid 10$ for it, it is worth it. Not much of details as you would expect out of a great movie, not much of substance in the movie itself however the acting and the pace of the movie is so beautiful you wont think of the flaws in the intricate plans they carry out in the movie. The subtle comedy is really nice and they have kept the first movie in consideration and have not brought many new characters. It is not a movie that you would think a lot about after you come out of the hall, however you will not think anything else either while the movie is going on. I will give it 7 for the sheer value of entertainment and nothing else and of course the one liners that keep popping up which actually make you laugh.