If you like history check out NATIONAL TREASURE

[CptColumbo]

Great fun for history buffs, as all the clues involve historical trivia. See if you can stay ahead of Nick Cage and the other characters.

[hgc]

"National Treasure" is so silly that the Monty Python version could use the same screenplay, line for line.- Roger Ebert, The Chicago Sun-Times.

[CptColumbo]

I love Python too.

The problem I have with film reviewers (and I'm not singling out Roger Ebert, who I usually agree with), is that they feel that their opinion on a movie is earthshattering and should somehow matter to the world. In the end it is an opinion, and like @$$h*!&s everyone has one. Including me.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
I love Python too.

The problem I have with film reviewers (and I'm not singling out Roger Ebert, who I usually agree with), is that they feel that their opinion on a movie is earthshattering and should somehow matter to the world. In the end it is an opinion, and like @$$h*!&s everyone has one. Including me.

WTF?? Of course it's an opinion. And I would hope they think it mattered - otherwise, why write it?

[Piscivore]

Some opinions are obviously more valuable than others. Roger Ebert is well educated on the subject, so I'm inclined to give his opinion a lot more weight.

As for the movie in question, from the trailers I've seen it looks like the clues are based more on Illuminati conspiracy theories than on history. Could be a fun brainless romp nevertheless, but then I liked "Battlefield Earth" in that capacity. In any case, the next movie I'm likely to go see is either "The Incredibles" or ASOUE. Although I'm disappointed that Klaus doesn't have glasses. I don't see myself paying money to see National Treasure in theaters. Let's face it, the highlight of Nick Cage's career is still "Raising Arizona".

[CptColumbo]

Saw the Incredibles. I didn't think it is as good as the other Pixar movies, but my nephews and sister liked it. I've been a Comic Book collector most of my life, and there was some references that I enjoyed on that level.

In the bygone days of movie reviews, the reviewer would express their feelings about the movie and recommend whom the movie might be better suited for. Nowadays they seem to be saying whether they like the movie or not and the reader is wrong to disagree. One of the few big reviewers that is still giving reviews for everyone is Leonard Maltin (he gave a positive review of the Lizzie Mcquire Movie, because the kids with him enjoyed it and he wasn't bored).

Criticism involves looking at things from a perspective that may not be your own, but is appropriate for the subject matter. Roger Ebert was less of a curmudgeon (hope it's spelled right) years ago, but now he's adopted this superior attitude. I think it might be some of Richard Roeper rubbing off on him.

[hgc]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
Saw the Incredibles. I didn't think it is as good as the other Pixar movies, but my nephews and sister liked it. I've been a Comic Book collector most of my life, and there was some references that I enjoyed on that level.

In the bygone days of movie reviews, the reviewer would express their feelings about the movie and recommend whom the movie might be better suited for. Nowadays they seem to be saying whether they like the movie or not and the reader is wrong to disagree. One of the few big reviewers that is still giving reviews for everyone is Leonard Maltin (he gave a positive review of the Lizzie Mcquire Movie, because the kids with him enjoyed it and he wasn't bored).
Sorry, I can't quite buy into that bygone days stuff. What bygone days are you referring to? Last year? Last decade? Pre-war? There was never a time that I've seen evidence for that critics were not expressing whether they like the movie or not. And what does it mean to say the reader is wrong to disagree? I've never seen Ebert write such a thing.
Criticism involves looking at things from a perspective that may not be your own, but is appropriate for the subject matter. Roger Ebert was less of a curmudgeon (hope it's spelled right) years ago, but now he's adopted this superior attitude. I think it might be some of Richard Roeper rubbing off on him. Can't buy that either. Criticism involves expressing your opinion, along with certain factual information. It is the opinion that is of value (or not) in criticism. If you don't think a certain critic's opinion is of value, then avoid that critic. For instance, I don't think Michael Medved's opinions are of any value, so I don't listen to it. I disagree with Roger Ebert on many, many of his reviews, but he talks about movies in a way that is useful and entertaining for me. How he gave 4 stars to the 2nd Harry Potter movie is beyond comprehension.

You want a real curmudgeon? Check out The Filthy Critic (http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/).

[CptColumbo]

Well, this is certainly not how I hoped this link would go. I was hoping that others who saw the movie would chime in and either agree or disagree, and we could discuss the clue and their significance and authenticity in history. So far no one who has seen the movie has entered an entry. BTW the Illuminati is not mentioned, the Masons are, but they exist and their quest (or whatever you want to call it) is glossed over and not intricate to the plot. The historical events and places discussed can be found in any encyclopedia and hopefully the movie will inspire those unfamiliar with the history of the Decleration of Independence and the men behind it to look it up.

Film criticism began in the early part of the 1910's in France, where film had become an art form rather than merely recording everyday events. The by-gone days I refered to ended in the mid-nineties with the death of Pauline Kael, one of the most prolific film critics of our time. After her death film criticism became less popular than film reviewing. The short explanation of the differences is that Criticism is for people who have seen or experienced a film (it is considered bad to summarize a plot in a critical look at a movie) and reviewing is for people who haven't.

If you wish to learn more about it some readings you might want to look up include:
Film Theory and Criticism
edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen

Introduction to Film Criticism:
Major Critical Approaches to narrative Film
By Tim Bywater and Thomas Sobchack

Let me relate an incident that occured a few years ago when I first took a film criticism class (those who have taken a literature class may have experienced the same thing). We were discussing how to take a feminist approach to a film, when the professor brought up the movie Deep Rising as one of the best examples of a pro-feminist film. Those who have seen Deep Rising maybe laughing to them selves right now, thinking it's a cheap Alien/Aliens ripoff. I happen to like it as a fun action movie, but never did feminism enter into my thoughts while watching it. The closest I got was thinking that Famke Jansen was a hot babe. The Professor went on to explain that the monster represened the Vagina, and the male hero (Treat Williams) was being fed into it until he shotgunned it. There is more, but I would have to dig out my notes to give you the full story on where this went. The point is that I never would have looked at that movie from that perspective, because it not one I normally use. I'm not saying that to truly enjoy a movie you must pick a perspective and deconstruct it using that one outlook, I saying be aware that there may be a perspective your not thinking of or respecting when reviewing a film.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

P.S. This is what part of the Alphabet would look like without a Q or R.

P.P.S. Go see National Treasure if it's not to inconveinient. You may like it.

[Regnad Kcin]

FWIW, National Treasure is currently running a weak 40% (54 good vs. 81 bad reviews nationwide) the details of which can be found at Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/national_treasure/).

Still, as evidenced by the 4 out of 10 critics for NT (as well as the OP) one might enjoy a particular movie for any number of reasons. That's why I will read a reviewer or two: not because they "like" something or not, but rather why.

[da bear]

Well for what it's worth, I've seen the movie and IMO it wasn't a bad movie for what it was supposed to be. I don't think that it took itself too seriously, and from all the things that I know about the historical facts, it at least tried to be accurate when it came to character facts and dates, except where they tied it into the main plot of course.

There was only one major thing that bothered me.

I'll leave some spoiler space for those that haven't seen the movie yet.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.


The whole quest starts out, and hinges on, him finding the key which turns out to be on the ship. Now why would they hide this most important item on a ship? As it turns out the ship is frozen in the ice, but it could have just as easily have been at the bottom of the ocean. If these men were supposed to be so intelligent, you would think that they would have hidden it in a more secure location like they did the glasses.

It's not that big a deal to me anyway. I go to movies aware of what I'm about to see. If it's going to be an genre movie, then I just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
BTW the Illuminati is not mentioned, the Masons are, but they exist and their quest (or whatever you want to call it) is glossed over and not intricate to the plot.

The Illuminati did exist, as a subgroup of Freemasonry. They are the ones that had a "quest" as you call it. They probably just used the Masons for the movie as they have name recognition for most Americans and the Illuminati don't.

[CptColumbo]

Originally posted by Piscivore
The Illuminati did exist, as a subgroup of Freemasonry. They are the ones that had a "quest" as you call it. They probably just used the Masons for the movie as they have name recognition for most Americans and the Illuminati don't.

The Illuminati was an sub-group of the German Freemasons and disbanded in 1797, and had no connection with the English Freemasons. From which all American Mason Lodges today are decendents of.

[MetalLibrarian]

I want to see National Treasure, but I can't seem to get around the fact that Nic Cage is creepy. At least, I think he is creepy!

[CptColumbo]

Originally posted by MetalLibrarian
I want to see National Treasure, but I can't seem to get around the fact that Nic Cage is creepy. At least, I think he is creepy!

It's that whole "looks like he's going to flip-out any second" thing isn't it.

[MetalLibrarian]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
It's that whole "looks like he's going to flip-out any second" thing isn't it.

Yes! I am glad I'm not the only one who sees it :D

[Kopji]

It's that whole "looks like he's going to flip-out any second" thing isn't it.

Yeah, perfect. What's with him?

Thought that the movie was just 'ok'.

I think it took itself way too seriously. This is perhaps the problem with casting Cage. He always has this sense of foreboding gravity. Having a sidekick is just not enough and seemed to be needed because of, well, Cage...

The whole 'theft' plot requires the audience to suspend reason a little too much, to advocate swiping a priceless document in order to get some treasure that may or may not exist.

Regardless, the clues to the map did not really seem convincing to warrant getting all shot up to take a look.

The really interesting characters seem to be left behind or sent off on errands. The father and girlfriend were potentially interesting 'gray' characters that were mostly unused.

End scene looked a lot like the closing scene of 'Raiders', with the big storeroom.

[hgc]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
...

Film criticism began in the early part of the 1910's in France, where film had become an art form rather than merely recording everyday events.Film served both purposes, art and quotidian, from the start, in France and everywhere else films were made.The by-gone days I refered to ended in the mid-nineties with the death of Pauline Kael, one of the most prolific film critics of our time. After her death film criticism became less popular than film reviewing. The short explanation of the differences is that Criticism is for people who have seen or experienced a film (it is considered bad to summarize a plot in a critical look at a movie) and reviewing is for people who haven't.Kael retired from The New Yorker in 1991 and died in 2001. Why would her death have anything to do with it if she had retired 10 years earlier? Assuming you actually think her retirement is the crucial event, what happened, exactly? Did all the critics working at the time suddenly turn to reviewing? I've always wondered at the supposed critic/reviewer distinction, but yours is surely more inventive than anything I could have imagined. What happens if I read a critique not having seen the movie? Does the invisible ink not reveal itself? Will I not understand what the critic is talking about? If the distinction is between a pomo academic, such as the creative guesser/professor you describe in regards to the Deep Rising analysis and and a newspaper columnist, then I will stick to the term reviewer for the purposes of this discussion.

Reviewers serve a useful purpose. They give us a way to find out about the possibility of whether the entertainment (film, theater, music, dance) we might spend time and money to take in might be worth it. They give us a touchstone after-the-fact to measure our own impressions against or an alternative opinion to our own. I happen to like Roger Ebert, not because I agree with him for the most part (and I often don't) but because he loves movies the way I do, and his way of talking about them conveys that love and enjoyment very effectively.

Let me quote from him, in a current essay on his site
What I am trying to say is that I love my work. I love movies, I love to see movies, I love to write about movies, I love to talk about movies, I love to go through them a frame at a time in the dark with a room full of people watching them with me and noticing the most extraordinary things. On the Monday at Boulder, we showed "The Rules of the Game" all the way through and several people confessed they found it disappointing. Then we went through it for the rest of the week, a shot or even a frame at a time. By the Friday, they embraced it with a true passion. On Monday, we looked at it. By Friday, we had seen it.

Too many moviegoers look at movies and do not see them, but then it has always been that way. Movies are a time killer or a casual entertainment for most people, who rarely allow themselves to see movies that will jolt them out of that pattern. The jolting itself seems unpleasant to them. I'm not a snob about that; anyone who enjoys a movie is all right in my book. But the movies don't top out; as you evolve, there are always films and directors to lead you higher, until you get above the treetops with Ozu and Murnau, Bresson and Keaton, Renoir and Bergman and Hitchcock and Scorsese. You walk with giants.

One of our grandchildren told me the other day that he knew why I didn't like "White Chicks." It was, he said, "because you're not a kid. If you were a kid, you'd know how funny it was." "Yes," I said, "no doubt you're right. But if you were me, you'd know how bad it was." "But I'm not you," he said. "No, but you will be someday," I said. "I started out as a kid, and look how far I've come."
rogerebert.com (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041128/ESSAYS/41128001)

By the way, Roger Ebert's critic/reviewer hero is Stanley Kaufman, of The New Republic, whom I personally don't waste my time reading. It's a matter of taste, I guess.

If you wish to learn more about it some readings you might want to look up include:
Film Theory and Criticism
edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen
The
Introduction to Film Criticism:
Major Critical Approaches to narrative Film
By Tim Bywater and Thomas SobchackThanks for the reading suggestions.
...

P.P.S. Go see National Treasure if it's not to inconveinient. You may like it. I might do just that.

[RSLancastr]

Saw the thing last night.
Man, what a yawn, from beginning to end.

I can suspend disbelief as much as the next guy, but give me a break.

And even ignoring that, give me a character or two that I actually can like.

Barring that, give me some dialogue that doesn't sound as though it was written by Mrs. Fenstermocker's fourth grade class.

One of the hallmarks of a really bad movie is when watching it, you find yourself thinking "Oh, this is the part that is supposed to be exciting.", "Oh, this is the part that is supposed to be funny.", "Oh, this is the part that is supposed to be heartwarming", and so on.

There wasn't a moment in this film that got any real response from me other than boredom.

Also, if your film is all about following clues, give your audience a chance to try to figure them out. It felt like over and over in this movie, Nick Cage reads you a clue, then five seconds later tells you what it means.

Oh well.

[EdipisReks]

i was dragged to it, and i thought it sucked ona superficial level. as a history major, i thought it really sucked. as a fairly serious student of film, i thought it really, really, really sucked.

[BPSCG]

If you've read Foucault's Pendulum or The da Vinci Code, you have the basic plot: Centuries ago, the Knights Templar were charged with the task of safeguarding an unimaginable treasure. Only a few select people down through the ages have been entrusted with the secret of the treasure's location. Our Hero - not a Knight Templar - goes on quest to find/save treasure. Multiple clues to treasure's location are mystifying to you and me and non-Knights Templar with IQ less than four digits long, but Our Hero figures each one out in about fifteen seconds. Quest for the unimaginable treasure puts Our Hero in mortal danger every step of the way. Beautiful babe involved (Foucault excepting).

The da Vinci Code is supposed to come out in 2005, I think. Save this summary for when you see it; it'll come in handy.

Enjoyable movie, if you don't insist too hard that everything make perfect sense.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Enjoyable movie, if you don't insist too hard that everything make perfect sense. And if you don't insist it be well-written. :p

[Ipecac]

I thought that both The Incredibles and A Series of Unfortunate Events were excellent. :)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Ipecac
A Series of Unfortunate Events [was] excellent. :)

I'd go see that again rather than National Treasure.