Tracey FrinkThe Treasure Within the National Treasure Movies
January 23rd 2011 19:13
To kick off the resurrection of my blog, I would like to focus on the National Treasure movies. These movies seem to have absolute die-hard fans or pure haters with no middle ground to unite the two polar camps.
Personally, I sit in the first camp. I find the first movie and its sequel entertaining and I eagerly await the release of the proposed third movie. For me, these movies harken back to the Disney live action films I grew up with. Movies like Follow Me Boys (1966), The Parent Trap (1961) and That Darn Cat (1965) all had elements that appealed to every age group and not just a select demographic, despite what the base story might have implied.
National Treasure and National Treasure: Book of Secrets are movies that can be enjoyed by everyone. A movie doesn’t have to be laced with drug use, sex, swearing and excess violence to be worthy of watching. Sometimes, all you need is an intriguing story, even if facets of that story might seem far-fetched.
However, show me a live action Disney movie that isn’t far-fetched in some capacity, even if they might have been based on actual events. The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band (1968), comes to mind. (I dare you to say that title five times fast.)
As those who have visited this blog know, I format these posts to convey the good, bad and ugly. In this case, I couldn’t find an ugly point to document, so this summation will be divided into the films’ assets and their shortfalls. Also, rather than break up the films into separate critiques, I will focus on both at the same time. It saves me from having to repeat myself.
Above all, one thing these movies have in their corner is a well-rounded cast. In my humble opinion, you can have a superbly written script but, if you don’t have qualified actors/actresses conveying the story to the moviegoer, well, you may as well have written mindless drivel. Each actor did so well in his/her respective role, that I have trouble envisioning another actor in their stead. Also, the inter-generational casting, I think, allows for a much broader viewing audience.
Nicholas Cage becomes Benjamin Franklin Gates to a point, that it just becomes frightening. This is a character that could easily have been clichéd, but in this case, is given a bit of humanity, a conscience. Even when he is so close to either goal, whether it be the Templar treasure that he spent his whole life looking for or Cibola, that he can smell it, he still puts those he cares about over the treasure. Hell, he even tried to save the villain in Book of Secrets. Maybe he’s a bit too much of a martyr sometimes, but at least his head isn’t completely lodged where the sun doesn’t shine (most of the time.).
Justin Bartha owns his role as Ben’s technologically gifted assistant/friend Riley Poole. For the record, I refuse to label this character as a mere sidekick as he plays an integral role in both movies. Justin has a naturally dry wit, which forms the basis of Riley’s personality, but he incorporates some vulnerability that keeps the character from appearing entirely emotionally detached. Maybe it’s the undying loyalty to his friend. Maybe it’s those soulful blue eyes. Plus, Nic and Justin have a natural chemistry on screen and are able to play their respective characters off each other, creating a fluid banter that can be rather comical.
Diane Kruger’s portrayal of Abigail Chase is refreshing in that she is a rather dominant female character, respected for her brain and not just her body. As Ben’s eventual love interest, her stubbornness and determination equal, if not overpower his. You know that they could make a good pair, but as the second movie proved, they can also have quite the rocky road.
John Voight and Helen Mirren play the roles of Patrick Gates and Emily Appleton, Ben’s parents. In the first movie, there is obvious tension between Patrick and Ben, because of the treasure. This had already been alluded to in the beginning of the film in the scene with Ben’s grandfather (though, Patrick makes it sound more like she has died).
However, rather than portray the father as irreversibly hostile toward the idea of treasure hunting, you get the feeling during the scene in his dining room that he still had a tiny shred of belief left. What he felt wasn’t anger, it was disappointment and that he was almost afraid to let himself believe in it again after what he had lost because of it. Therefore, it was easier to be gruff and dismissing. But, he does come around with the discovery of the Templar treasure and he is a firm believer by the onset of the second movie.
That’s when his ex-wife comes into the fray. Unfortunately, she doesn’t get a lot of backstory. However, you quickly learn she is a strong-willed woman, perhaps a little too much so for Patrick. Those two do a superb job of acting like an old, embittered, long divorced couple that it’s hilarious.
I am not familiar with Harvey Keitel’s work as he usually stars in the kind of movies that I really can’t get into. However, I liked his portrayal of Agent Peter Sadusky. He was an equal to Ben Gates, a stumbling block to his quest that seemed insurmountable. Also, you get a brief impression that Sadusky isn’t one-hundred percent appalled at Gates’ theft of the precious Declaration of Independence and, you know that if he really wanted to catch Ben, he had plenty of time to do so. He wasn’t so unobservant that he couldn’t have tracked him down. He wanted Ben to find the treasure. Classy! (He wasn’t so amused about the president being kidnapped, however.)
The villains were well cast in these films, though, I have to say that I liked Sean Bean’s portrayal of Ian Howe in the first movie over Ed Harris’ Mitch Wilkinson in Book of Secrets. Ian Howe was an equal intellectual adversary for Ben Gates and was only a step behind him throughout most of the first movie. Also, his personality seems to flit from nemesis to almost friendly in some respects, so the viewer isn’t quite sure where he sits. Is he really as violent as he lets on or is his bark worse than his bite?
Mitch Wilkinson wasn’t a stupid man, but he relied on Ben to do the work for him. It would have been a bit refreshing to see the same finesse in Wilkinson that we saw in Howe. It was almost like the character had been written into the story for the sake of supplying a gun-toting villain. Really, there isn’t any real depth to Wilkinson until he sacrifices himself at the end of the movie. This is nothing against Ed Harris as an actor. He was just working with the material he was given. Sad really, because I think more could have been done with his character.
Filming these movies in their respective locales, rather than stick to a sound stage, created authenticity. Filming on location is always a chore but, in this case, dually so as the movies trekked around the globe. The complexity of the action scenes, devoid of gratuitous violence made the pace of the movies frenetic, but in a good way. To me, a good movie is one where it doesn’t feel like 1.5 - 2 hours have passed. The action as our heroes follow each clue to the respective treasures keeps you glued to the screen and not to a clock.
Now, for the bad and I’m sorry to say I even have to go here. Please note that the following is based on repeat viewings as well as viewing the bonus materials on the respective DVDs. For the casual viewer, these errors and nitpicks might not be so glaringly apparent.
In the first movie, I was perturbed by the shortening of the scene concerning the spiral staircase. When you go back and watch the whole, uncut scene on the DVD, you realize that the scene wasn’t spliced together quite right and that the longer version makes more sense. Shortening the scene didn’t take much time off the overall length of the movie, so it could have been left alone.
Another sticky point is a blatant continuity error between the two movies. In the first movie, Patrick Gates’ house is in Philadelphia. In the second movie, it’s in Washington D.C. It’s the same Federalist style house. So, where’s the humongous flatbed truck that moved it? Or, more appropriately, who’s the person that messed up the editing? Seriously, where does Patrick Gates live?
Speaking of continuity, what happened to that little promise that Ben made to Riley at the end of the first movie? Supposedly, Riley would get to set the finders’ fee upon the discovery of a treasure that redefined history for all mankind, but you never hear about it again. I think the writers mucked up. Yes, I know this is a minor point, but it becomes glaringly apparent if you ever decide to watch the movies back to back.
One last sticky point, concerns the content from Book of Shadows that met the chopping block. Um, I wish some of that had been kept in there, particularly the alternate Mount Rushmore scene that explained why Emily gave Patrick the false clue about the hummingbird. You know, I don’t know how many times I watched that DVD wondering what the heck was up with that damned hummingbird and why it tied in to the Cibola legend. Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t! Our characters know this, but the viewer is left with a sense of confusion. I got that it was a false clue, but I didn’t know why or how. It is only in the cut scene that it’s revealed the hummingbird refers to a Lakota legend. Really, would it have been so difficult to at least keep that part?
Another cut scene that ticked me off belongs to Riley and explains how he was able to hack into the Buckingham Palace computers. The viewer gets a highly detailed play-by-play of Riley’s technical wizardry concerning the Declaration heist. Why weren’t the viewers entitled to the same detail concerning the Resolute desk in the Queen’s study? Maybe, there was fear of treading the same, tired ground, but I think, in this case, that would have been excusable.
If they really wanted to cut fat in the second movie, why didn’t they choose scene where Patrick plays decoy at the President’s birthday bash. It’s amusing, but not entirely necessary. If anything, his cover for Ben could have been pared down. I worry that this movie suffered the same kind of edit that Back to the Future Part II suffered, in that certain things, when cut, made other scenes not quite make sense.
That scene with Sadusky and Ben on the glass roof of the Library of Congress would have been good to leave in. I mean, you never see Sadusky between his arrival at the Library of Congress and his appearance at Mt. Rushmore. It’s a bit of an insult to imply he was idle all that time.
Like I said, these points are minor. They certainly do not detract from the overall experience of the movies.
In closing, the National Treasure movies are a refreshing nod to what Disney used to be. These film are fun-filled romps that deserve to be given more than a passing glance. If Walt were still alive, I bet he would have given his stamp of approval.
Personally, I sit in the first camp. I find the first movie and its sequel entertaining and I eagerly await the release of the proposed third movie. For me, these movies harken back to the Disney live action films I grew up with. Movies like Follow Me Boys (1966), The Parent Trap (1961) and That Darn Cat (1965) all had elements that appealed to every age group and not just a select demographic, despite what the base story might have implied.
National Treasure and National Treasure: Book of Secrets are movies that can be enjoyed by everyone. A movie doesn’t have to be laced with drug use, sex, swearing and excess violence to be worthy of watching. Sometimes, all you need is an intriguing story, even if facets of that story might seem far-fetched.
However, show me a live action Disney movie that isn’t far-fetched in some capacity, even if they might have been based on actual events. The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band (1968), comes to mind. (I dare you to say that title five times fast.)
As those who have visited this blog know, I format these posts to convey the good, bad and ugly. In this case, I couldn’t find an ugly point to document, so this summation will be divided into the films’ assets and their shortfalls. Also, rather than break up the films into separate critiques, I will focus on both at the same time. It saves me from having to repeat myself.
Above all, one thing these movies have in their corner is a well-rounded cast. In my humble opinion, you can have a superbly written script but, if you don’t have qualified actors/actresses conveying the story to the moviegoer, well, you may as well have written mindless drivel. Each actor did so well in his/her respective role, that I have trouble envisioning another actor in their stead. Also, the inter-generational casting, I think, allows for a much broader viewing audience.
Nicholas Cage becomes Benjamin Franklin Gates to a point, that it just becomes frightening. This is a character that could easily have been clichéd, but in this case, is given a bit of humanity, a conscience. Even when he is so close to either goal, whether it be the Templar treasure that he spent his whole life looking for or Cibola, that he can smell it, he still puts those he cares about over the treasure. Hell, he even tried to save the villain in Book of Secrets. Maybe he’s a bit too much of a martyr sometimes, but at least his head isn’t completely lodged where the sun doesn’t shine (most of the time.).
Justin Bartha owns his role as Ben’s technologically gifted assistant/friend Riley Poole. For the record, I refuse to label this character as a mere sidekick as he plays an integral role in both movies. Justin has a naturally dry wit, which forms the basis of Riley’s personality, but he incorporates some vulnerability that keeps the character from appearing entirely emotionally detached. Maybe it’s the undying loyalty to his friend. Maybe it’s those soulful blue eyes. Plus, Nic and Justin have a natural chemistry on screen and are able to play their respective characters off each other, creating a fluid banter that can be rather comical.
Diane Kruger’s portrayal of Abigail Chase is refreshing in that she is a rather dominant female character, respected for her brain and not just her body. As Ben’s eventual love interest, her stubbornness and determination equal, if not overpower his. You know that they could make a good pair, but as the second movie proved, they can also have quite the rocky road.
John Voight and Helen Mirren play the roles of Patrick Gates and Emily Appleton, Ben’s parents. In the first movie, there is obvious tension between Patrick and Ben, because of the treasure. This had already been alluded to in the beginning of the film in the scene with Ben’s grandfather (though, Patrick makes it sound more like she has died).
However, rather than portray the father as irreversibly hostile toward the idea of treasure hunting, you get the feeling during the scene in his dining room that he still had a tiny shred of belief left. What he felt wasn’t anger, it was disappointment and that he was almost afraid to let himself believe in it again after what he had lost because of it. Therefore, it was easier to be gruff and dismissing. But, he does come around with the discovery of the Templar treasure and he is a firm believer by the onset of the second movie.
That’s when his ex-wife comes into the fray. Unfortunately, she doesn’t get a lot of backstory. However, you quickly learn she is a strong-willed woman, perhaps a little too much so for Patrick. Those two do a superb job of acting like an old, embittered, long divorced couple that it’s hilarious.
I am not familiar with Harvey Keitel’s work as he usually stars in the kind of movies that I really can’t get into. However, I liked his portrayal of Agent Peter Sadusky. He was an equal to Ben Gates, a stumbling block to his quest that seemed insurmountable. Also, you get a brief impression that Sadusky isn’t one-hundred percent appalled at Gates’ theft of the precious Declaration of Independence and, you know that if he really wanted to catch Ben, he had plenty of time to do so. He wasn’t so unobservant that he couldn’t have tracked him down. He wanted Ben to find the treasure. Classy! (He wasn’t so amused about the president being kidnapped, however.)
The villains were well cast in these films, though, I have to say that I liked Sean Bean’s portrayal of Ian Howe in the first movie over Ed Harris’ Mitch Wilkinson in Book of Secrets. Ian Howe was an equal intellectual adversary for Ben Gates and was only a step behind him throughout most of the first movie. Also, his personality seems to flit from nemesis to almost friendly in some respects, so the viewer isn’t quite sure where he sits. Is he really as violent as he lets on or is his bark worse than his bite?
Mitch Wilkinson wasn’t a stupid man, but he relied on Ben to do the work for him. It would have been a bit refreshing to see the same finesse in Wilkinson that we saw in Howe. It was almost like the character had been written into the story for the sake of supplying a gun-toting villain. Really, there isn’t any real depth to Wilkinson until he sacrifices himself at the end of the movie. This is nothing against Ed Harris as an actor. He was just working with the material he was given. Sad really, because I think more could have been done with his character.
Filming these movies in their respective locales, rather than stick to a sound stage, created authenticity. Filming on location is always a chore but, in this case, dually so as the movies trekked around the globe. The complexity of the action scenes, devoid of gratuitous violence made the pace of the movies frenetic, but in a good way. To me, a good movie is one where it doesn’t feel like 1.5 - 2 hours have passed. The action as our heroes follow each clue to the respective treasures keeps you glued to the screen and not to a clock.
Now, for the bad and I’m sorry to say I even have to go here. Please note that the following is based on repeat viewings as well as viewing the bonus materials on the respective DVDs. For the casual viewer, these errors and nitpicks might not be so glaringly apparent.
In the first movie, I was perturbed by the shortening of the scene concerning the spiral staircase. When you go back and watch the whole, uncut scene on the DVD, you realize that the scene wasn’t spliced together quite right and that the longer version makes more sense. Shortening the scene didn’t take much time off the overall length of the movie, so it could have been left alone.
Another sticky point is a blatant continuity error between the two movies. In the first movie, Patrick Gates’ house is in Philadelphia. In the second movie, it’s in Washington D.C. It’s the same Federalist style house. So, where’s the humongous flatbed truck that moved it? Or, more appropriately, who’s the person that messed up the editing? Seriously, where does Patrick Gates live?
Speaking of continuity, what happened to that little promise that Ben made to Riley at the end of the first movie? Supposedly, Riley would get to set the finders’ fee upon the discovery of a treasure that redefined history for all mankind, but you never hear about it again. I think the writers mucked up. Yes, I know this is a minor point, but it becomes glaringly apparent if you ever decide to watch the movies back to back.
One last sticky point, concerns the content from Book of Shadows that met the chopping block. Um, I wish some of that had been kept in there, particularly the alternate Mount Rushmore scene that explained why Emily gave Patrick the false clue about the hummingbird. You know, I don’t know how many times I watched that DVD wondering what the heck was up with that damned hummingbird and why it tied in to the Cibola legend. Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t! Our characters know this, but the viewer is left with a sense of confusion. I got that it was a false clue, but I didn’t know why or how. It is only in the cut scene that it’s revealed the hummingbird refers to a Lakota legend. Really, would it have been so difficult to at least keep that part?
Another cut scene that ticked me off belongs to Riley and explains how he was able to hack into the Buckingham Palace computers. The viewer gets a highly detailed play-by-play of Riley’s technical wizardry concerning the Declaration heist. Why weren’t the viewers entitled to the same detail concerning the Resolute desk in the Queen’s study? Maybe, there was fear of treading the same, tired ground, but I think, in this case, that would have been excusable.
If they really wanted to cut fat in the second movie, why didn’t they choose scene where Patrick plays decoy at the President’s birthday bash. It’s amusing, but not entirely necessary. If anything, his cover for Ben could have been pared down. I worry that this movie suffered the same kind of edit that Back to the Future Part II suffered, in that certain things, when cut, made other scenes not quite make sense.
That scene with Sadusky and Ben on the glass roof of the Library of Congress would have been good to leave in. I mean, you never see Sadusky between his arrival at the Library of Congress and his appearance at Mt. Rushmore. It’s a bit of an insult to imply he was idle all that time.
Like I said, these points are minor. They certainly do not detract from the overall experience of the movies.
In closing, the National Treasure movies are a refreshing nod to what Disney used to be. These film are fun-filled romps that deserve to be given more than a passing glance. If Walt were still alive, I bet he would have given his stamp of approval.
| 112 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
