6 Comments Add your own

• 1. Nick  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am

  

  I agree. I saw it Saturday night and was not overly impressed, though I wasn’t expecting much. I never expect a sequel to be that great, so it really met expectations.

• 2. John  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am

  

  I wouldn’t have given this film a second thought, but my nine year-old daughter really, really wanted to see it (also, a friend of mine worked on the Disney Goofy short that precedes NATIONAL TREASURE in most markets; he animated the “packing peanuts explosion” scene).

  I had no idea that NATIONAL TREASURE is a Disney family-type franchise – – the film itself was pretty generic, but it was fascinating to see it through my daughter’s eyes. No blood or gore, only comic book violence, and a plot that a nine year-old could follow without ever having to ask me to fill in any blanks.

  Plot holes aplenty, but my daughter loved it, and that’s all that matters. Better than having to see “Alvin and the Chipmuks.”

• 3. Elliot  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am

  

  The movie itself wasn’t horrible. Cage’s hair is! Shiver.

• 4. Kate  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am

  

  Perhaps Cage should remember…..Yul Brenner was the sexiest man….no hair…..Sean Connery….very sexy…..no hair. Bad rug…..very UNSEXY!

• 5. John  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am

  

  The hair is the least of the work he’s had done.

• 6. Deibert  |  January 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am

  

  I also saw it. Didn’t enjoy is as much as the first one. (which was already a watered-down, Americanized version of the DaVinci Code)

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.