All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

Average User Score: 8 (217 sources)

Submit Movie Review

Review this film

Tell the world what you think of National Treasure: The Book of Secrets

Your Score:

reset score

Write Your Review:
When writing your review, remember to keep the language clean.

Submit Review Cancel

Lokar

-1

Agree (0)

Disagree (0)

Fun summer-type adventure film that is lacking in a few different ways, but makes for a decent cartoonish style of storytelling. I love adventure novels and the old-school mystery flicks. This film takes a cue from those elements, and adds what is...
[+] Read Full Review

Fun summer-type adventure film that is lacking in a few different ways, but makes for a decent cartoonish style of storytelling. I love adventure novels and the old-school mystery flicks. This film takes a cue from those elements, and adds what is at best capable acting from Jon Voight and Nicholas Cage. They both don't seem as animated as they used to-- someone forgot to freshen the coffee-- but you'll watch it more for the plot anyway. The movie is a bit too long. Unless it's a documentary, I get a little winded when movies stretch over two hours. Still, if you wanted to catch up with what happened after the first story, give this movie a try.

[-] Minimize Review

Report Abuse

Posted aug 2, 2008 6:52 am pt

gruffi40

-1

Agree (0)

Disagree (1)

Pretty cool flick. This could easily be the next James Bond franchise. The story doesn't really matter as long as the puzzles nd mystery is there.

Report Abuse

Posted jul 9, 2008 6:27 pm pt

mizasterj

-1

Agree (0)

Disagree (2)

Its hard to fathom that Lincoln's assassination could somehow be tied to the lost city of gold, and that said city is actualy inside Mt Rushmore. Still thats not all this story would have you believe. Some scenes of this movie are absurdly...
[+] Read Full Review

Its hard to fathom that Lincoln's assassination could somehow be tied to the lost city of gold, and that said city is actualy inside Mt Rushmore. Still thats not all this story would have you believe. Some scenes of this movie are absurdly ridiculous. Such as luring the President away from his birthday party to go 1 on 1 cave digging just for the hell of it. Not to mention children that enthusiasticaly spat out government conspiriceis and polictical theory at random. Gee kids isnt history fun? its chock full of ancient mystreries and vast arrays of treasure oh and Booby traps. Only in the World of Disney. By the way what's a great talent like Ed Harris doing in this film? I mean you hardly even recognize hes there in between all the word searches and number shuffling. oh wait hes the villain that turns out to be not so vile after all. Who could have guessed? Doesnt that make you feel guilty for misjudging him? shame on you. This is definetly a Disney film trying to teach us the golden rules of life. The plot in this movie, diverges itself from the Lincoln Assassanation because lets face it thats not nearly important enough or as interesting as an entire city of gold. I mean finding out historial truths about the death of one of our nations greatest leaders should have to take a backseat to a greed filled pursuit of fame and fortune. of corse. anyway Nick Cage is back in his role of champion rubix cube solver and embarks on a mission to prove his family's innocence by kidnapping the president, breaking into federal buildings stealing highly classified documents, pillaging the white house, and endangering the lives of everyone around him. sounds logical. The movie is a sorta a quirky fun filled romp for the whole family, even though kids will probably zone out during all the witty banter and historical ramblings. It was on par with the original if not a little bit better. Rent it.

[-] Minimize Review

Report Abuse

Posted jun 16, 2008 2:30 am pt

sheep233

-1

Agree (1)

Disagree (2)

A big heaping pile of tedium, with some bad jokes thrown in to make this movie even worse. Nicholas Cage(one of my disliked actors) once again plays Ben Gates, a know-it-all adventurer/treasure hunter who, this time, decides to clear his family's...
[+] Read Full Review

A big heaping pile of tedium, with some bad jokes thrown in to make this movie even worse. Nicholas Cage(one of my disliked actors) once again plays Ben Gates, a know-it-all adventurer/treasure hunter who, this time, decides to clear his family's name. He does this because one of his distant relatives are accused of planning the assasination of Abe lincoln. So he'll do ANYTHING, even kidnap the president of America, to fulfill his mission. boring, bad acting, and it just doesn't make any sense.

[-] Minimize Review

Report Abuse

Posted jun 13, 2008 11:14 pm pt

LB80

-1

Agree (0)

Disagree (2)

Lacks the spark of the Indiana Jones films, but still fairly entertaining for what it it is, and it's always nice to get a couple of interesting historical facts along the way :).

The film sags towards the end, and Helen Mirren's...
[+] Read Full Review

Lacks the spark of the Indiana Jones films, but still fairly entertaining for what it it is, and it's always nice to get a couple of interesting historical facts along the way :).

The film sags towards the end, and Helen Mirren's accent was a bit all over the place, but overall you could do worse.

[-] Minimize Review

Report Abuse

Posted jun 8, 2008 6:47 pm pt

John666666666

-1

Agree (0)

Disagree (2)

Even worse than the first movie.

Report Abuse

Posted jun 6, 2008 1:10 pm pt

pokeyfz

-1

Agree (2)

Disagree (1)

Way better than the first movie. Same type of style, but with a better plot. A good family movie.

Report Abuse

Posted jun 5, 2008 6:57 am pt

Vyce3

-1

Agree (1)

Disagree (3)

If you liked the first movie, you will love Book of Secrets. It's as good as the first and I'm very picky when it comes to sequels. The only thing I liked better in the original was that Sean Bean was a much better villain. The villain in this one...
[+] Read Full Review

If you liked the first movie, you will love Book of Secrets. It's as good as the first and I'm very picky when it comes to sequels. The only thing I liked better in the original was that Sean Bean was a much better villain. The villain in this one stops beeing a threat near the end. But other than that, the plot is very enjoyable. I highly recommend you get this movie. And on Blu-Ray it looks fantastic!

[-] Minimize Review

Report Abuse

Posted may 22, 2008 11:31 pm pt

Vyce3

-1

Agree (1)

Disagree (2)

If you liked the first movie, you will love Book of Secrets. It's as good as the first and I'm very picky when it comes to sequels. The only thing I liked better in the original was that Sean Bean was a much better villain. The villain in this one...
[+] Read Full Review

If you liked the first movie, you will love Book of Secrets. It's as good as the first and I'm very picky when it comes to sequels. The only thing I liked better in the original was that Sean Bean was a much better villain. The villain in this one stops beeing a threat near the end. But other than that, the plot is very enjoyable. I highly recommend you get this movie. And on Blu-Ray it looks fantastic!

[-] Minimize Review

Report Abuse

Posted may 22, 2008 11:31 pm pt

scraffy009

-1

Agree (1)

Disagree (1)

Great action, Funny Humor, and a worthwhile plot that made you question if all the conspiracies they talked about were true at all. I thought the movie was a good time killer that didnt drag and kept the action going.

Report Abuse

Posted may 20, 2008 1:18 pm pt

• [+] San Francisco Chronicle
  
  75
  A welcome throwback to family-friendly PG moviemaking.

  by Peter Hartlaub | Read Full Review »
• [+] LA Weekly
  
  70
  This ain't "The Da Vinci Code," folks, and the reason you can tell is that it's actually quite entertaining.

  by Luke Y. Thompson | Read Full Review »
• [+] Washington Post
  
  70
  Cage is back in crackling good form in National Treasure: Book of Secrets.

  by Ann Hornaday | Read Full Review »
• [+] Entertainment Weekly
  
  67
  Director Jon Turteltaub has fun with Indian glyphs, giant stone pulleys, and an Indy Jones-worthy City of Gold located beneath the rocky shoals of Mount Rushmore.

  by Owen Gleiberman | Read Full Review »
• [+] The Onion (A.V. Club)
  
  67
  It's a measure of the film's infectious goofiness that Cage seems altogether more interested in clearing the name of a long-dead ancestor than in finding a city of gold.

  by Nathan Rabin | Read Full Review »
• [+] The Hollywood Reporter
  
  60
  It contains all the elements from the original film...But that's the problem: It's virtually the same movie with new locations. Oh, plus Helen Mirren. Not a bad addition, but the popcorn fun is gone.

  by Kirk Honeycutt | Read Full Review »
• [+] Variety
  
  60
  Graced with some extra star wattage courtesy of Helen Mirren and Ed Harris, this diminishing-returns sequel sends Nicolas Cage on another quest to strike it rich, get young auds excited about history and solve puzzles that are generally less stimulating than yesterday's Sudoku.

  by Justin Chang | Read Full Review »
• [+] The New York Times
  
  60
  Like its predecessor, "National Treasure," this sequel amounts to a bunch of crossword puzzle answers stitched together with explosions, chases and displays of intuitive reasoning that the "Twin Peaks" F.B.I. agent Dale Cooper would reject as too right-brained.

  by Matt Zoller Seitz | Read Full Review »
• [+] Baltimore Sun
  
  58
  A strictly by-the-book sequel: It doesn't cheat series fans but it doesn't offer many thrills or surprises or lingering puzzles, either.

  by Michael Sragow | Read Full Review »
• [+] Boston Globe
  
  50
  Often as noisy, dippy, and enjoyable as 2004's "National Treasure," and when it's not, it's just another sequel, more absurd than most.

  by Ty Burr | Read Full Review »
• [+] Christian Science Monitor
  
  50
  No better than the first - which means it will probably be creamed by critics and make a jillion dollars. But really, standards are standards.

  by Peter Rainer | Read Full Review »
• [+] Chicago Sun-Times
  
  50
  The movie has terrific if completely unbelievable special effects. The actors had fun, I guess. You might, too, if you like goofiness like this.

  by Roger Ebert | Read Full Review »
• [+] USA Today
  
  50
  This sequel is what you would expect: If you liked the original, you'll probably enjoy this retread. But be warned: It bogs down in a drawn-out scene near the end. There's certainly nothing to treasure about this movie, but if a popcorn movie with moderate intrigue and occasional humor is what you're after, this is just the ticket.

  by Claudia Puig | Read Full Review »
• [+] Chicago Reader
  
  50
  Leave it to coproducer Jerry Bruckheimer to revive the Indiana Jones cycle without the period setting, the camp elements, or Spielberg's efficiency; director Jon Turteltaub just plods along, and the script by Marianne and Cormac Wibberley is equally poker-faced.

  by Jonathan Rosenbaum | Read Full Review »
• [+] TV Guide
  
  50
  It shares all the original's shortcomings ----it's too long and too loud and filled with historical disinformation -- but none of the snap that made "National Treasure" fun for kids and a guilty pleasure for some adults.

  by Ken Fox | Read Full Review »