Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Floated2 National Treasure: Book of Secrets is the sequel to successful film National Treasure released in 2004. In this film, the secretly embedded key is on a torn out page of a diary, though not just any diary. This is one of historic significance. Reviewing and watching the film, we the audience notices that it is the diary of John Wilkes Booth, the evil plotter who assassinated Abraham Lincoln, containing the detailed preparations leading up to that tragic event. Through the film, Gate's estranged archivist wife Abigail Chase's (pretty Diane Kruger) new boyfriend who happens, by virtue of his Secret Service connections, to be able to provide access to the hallowed stacks in the Library of Congress (instead of the Smithsonian) and, later, to the Oval Office; thence to Paris, to London and ultimately back to America. The film is filled with more clever hints but as a whole it does not appear as good as the original. It may not be as rehashed, which is good and is quite entertaining but it could have been greater as a whole.

Leofwine_draca The first NATIONAL TREASURE was your usual clichéd Hollywood adventure, a cheap-in-ideas but big-in-budget Dan Brown knock-off with little to remember it by. This sequel is even worse, saddled as it is with unbelievable situations, random character motivations, and one of the dullest plot lines ever (in which Nicolas Cage's character must prove the innocence of one of his historical ancestors).In a film where the stakes are so low, everything seems artificial, from Diane Kruger's shoehorned-in love interest to Ed Harris's token bad guy. Jon Voight is a little better as Cage's dad, but the two of them are too obviously going for a Harrison Ford/Sean Connery relationship as in INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, and it doesn't really gel. Still, Harvey Keitel is always a pleasure to see on screen, even though Helen Mirren gets right up my nose.The film's globetrotting antics are where this film becomes particularly ridiculous, especially in its need to do cool and goofy things: let's break into Buckingham Palace (so easily), let's kidnap the President. As mentioned, it all feels very random and stupid, and Cage's overacting doesn't help; the scenes where he plays funny/crazy really are excruciating. I blame the Disney influence.

Janelle Mercer I read some of the other reviews and I have to say WOW!! I find it hilarious anyone would say a movie wasn't realistic or it was far fetched. So I suppose Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, etc. Are completely plausible story lines right?! Here's a dose of reality: we go to the movies to escape reality and be entertained. Being a Mom I always look at things in the standpoint of is it acceptable and entertaining for my family to watch. This movie completely lives up to those requirements! It is fun/ funny and has an Indiana Jones for kids feel to it. Plus I absolutely enjoy the humor in it. I can watch this movie with my kids or by myself. If you're looking for a fun and uplifting flick this is a great pick.

Harriet Deltubbo Right from the opening scene I knew I wasn't going to be disappointed. The action, special effects, acting, comedy and romance were all better than the original, in my opinion. The plot was a little confusing, but all in all it was an extremely fun and enjoyable movie. I actually found myself watching it four times in a row. I probably could have watched it 24 hours straight, but I didn't want to ruin it right away, you know? This cast interacts with absolute precision, whether walking around a room or interrupting each others' wisecracks. The script and direction meld into a strong movie. What's best is that not one character ever withdraws tongue from cheek. I give it a final rating of 7/10.