By Aaron 12/24/2007

My same friend who dragged my sorry ass to Hitman (read about that experience here) pushed me into seeing National Treasure: Book of Secrets (and to think the movie I ‘dragged’ him to was Atonement, sheesh), but even Dan Brown couldn’t have planned a twist that was so shocking: the movie was good. It was really entertaining, and really good for a Disney flick.

The movie picks up where the last one left off, Ben Gates (Nicholas Cage) and his dad Patrick Gates (Jon Voight) are buddy buddy again, and rich, successful historians/treasure hunters basking in the glory, and dishing some too as they push for the recognition of their ancestor, Thomas Gates, who prevented the Confederacy from finding a large treasure to keep them going. Unfortunately Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) has a different story, that Thomas Gates was the chief conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. The only way to prove Wilkinson wrong is to find the treasure (of course). All Ben has to do is break into some of the most secure buildings in the nation and find the one treasure that has eluded discovery for half a millennia. No problem, right? To lighten things up, Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) comes back, as does Ben’s squeeze from the first flick (Diane Kruger) – who has left him when the movie takes up the story.

I thought this movie would be terrible, and it far exceeded expectations – far better than the first movie. While the first movie felt like a cheap rip-off looking to cash in on The Da Vinci Code craze, I thought this story was more original – in the sense that it wasn’t a complete Templar rip-off. The action was a little bit better too, and the writers knew to give Bartha more lines. Bartha is a near scene-stealer, especially for the handful of scenes where Cage seems to be sleepwalking through his part. Voigt is relegated to the background here, which was not entirely bad as another character of his sort is introduced in truly Disney fashion. Kruger is on screen about the same as the first movie – a miscalculation on their part, she should have had more. The scenes she is in are pretty good though, as she and Cage seem to be having fun together, and generating plenty of chemistry. Ed Harris is a poor replacement for Sean Bean, who was a great villain that seemed to have a more cutthroat, evil persona than Harris’ historian vibe. Sure, they say the guy is a mercenary, but come on, he is soo not scary. Plus the guy’s motives are totally screwed up and childish (if you’re really all about the history, why burn a piece?); at least it was crystal clear Bean just wanted the money last time.

I thought the movie was good, and could have been a great adventure movie without the few key Disney missteps. First, there was some general Disney corner cutting when it came to suspense and plot points. A few things were assume, some were executed poorly and rushed, while others were just left blank. Did Riley and Ben have a falling out? Are they still rich (they should be)? Second, as usual, Disney pulls their punches with the action. Whoever wrote the flick seemed to have had their hands tied on this because the writer wrote in plenty of opportunities for good action, but stopped short of the real deal. Instead of Indiana Jones, or even Sahara-type action, we’re left with Hook-style action, which is okay, but not great. Third, as already mentioned, Disney threw in a weak villain. You rarely have any real tension generated by Harris’ character, and you seem to be WAITING for the two of them to cooperate. Fourth, there were way too many coincidences that make everything run together. Sure, that happens in Hollywood movies, but at least put up more of a pretense. There are only five experts in the world who could read Olmec, luckily we know one…oh, we’ve been attacked, they didn’t steal anything, I wonder what they did do?? Fifth, maybe I’m just an undersexed college student, but Diane Kruger and Nicholas Cage need some more bedtime. I mean, get with the times. Sure I can kind of get passed Hanks and Tatou not having time to do it in Da Vinci, because that was a three-hour movie, but come on.

Conclusions: Diane Kruger needs to make more movies – to think she was hot enough to play Helen of Troy but couldn’t land subsequent parts? What??? And Justin Bartha too – he’s hilarious in this movie – even better than Steve Zahn in Sahara and he probably has more romantic comedy potential than Zahn because Bartha doesn’t look like a doofus. As usual Cage plays cage. But hey, it’s all good. 7/10 saltystix.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.