Metascore
48 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 26
  2. Negative: 6 out of 26
  1. A welcome throwback to family-friendly PG moviemaking.
  2. Reviewed by: Luke Y. Thompson
    70
    This ain't "The Da Vinci Code," folks, and the reason you can tell is that it's actually quite entertaining.
  3. 70
    Cage is back in crackling good form in National Treasure: Book of Secrets.
  4. Director Jon Turteltaub has fun with Indian glyphs, giant stone pulleys, and an Indy Jones-worthy City of Gold located beneath the rocky shoals of Mount Rushmore.
  5. 67
    It's a measure of the film's infectious goofiness that Cage seems altogether more interested in clearing the name of a long-dead ancestor than in finding a city of gold.
  6. It contains all the elements from the original film...But that's the problem: It's virtually the same movie with new locations. Oh, plus Helen Mirren. Not a bad addition, but the popcorn fun is gone.
  7. Reviewed by: Matt Zoller Seitz
    60
    Like its predecessor, "National Treasure," this sequel amounts to a bunch of crossword puzzle answers stitched together with explosions, chases and displays of intuitive reasoning that the "Twin Peaks" F.B.I. agent Dale Cooper would reject as too right-brained.
  8. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    60
    Graced with some extra star wattage courtesy of Helen Mirren and Ed Harris, this diminishing-returns sequel sends Nicolas Cage on another quest to strike it rich, get young auds excited about history and solve puzzles that are generally less stimulating than yesterday's Sudoku.
  9. 58
    A strictly by-the-book sequel: It doesn't cheat series fans but it doesn't offer many thrills or surprises or lingering puzzles, either.
  10. 50
    The movie has terrific if completely unbelievable special effects. The actors had fun, I guess. You might, too, if you like goofiness like this.
  11. If there was an iota of plausibility to any of this, we could forgive the film's greater leaps of imagination - all those break-ins of absurdly unprotected bastions of Western civilization. But this is not audience-participation suspense. All you can do is sit and watch, and wish there was more wonder.
  12. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    50
    It shares all the original's shortcomings ---it's too long and too loud and filled with historical disinformation -- but none of the snap that made "National Treasure" fun for kids and a guilty pleasure for some adults.
  13. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    50
    This sequel is what you would expect: If you liked the original, you'll probably enjoy this retread. But be warned: It bogs down in a drawn-out scene near the end. There's certainly nothing to treasure about this movie, but if a popcorn movie with moderate intrigue and occasional humor is what you're after, this is just the ticket.
  14. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    50
    Often as noisy, dippy, and enjoyable as 2004's "National Treasure," and when it's not, it's just another sequel, more absurd than most.
  15. 50
    Everything has been significantly amped up -- bigger, louder, further removed from reality -- but it also feels that much more forced. Cage and Kruger seem like they're not having much fun this time around, and Bartha still gets the best throwaway lines.
  16. Leave it to coproducer Jerry Bruckheimer to revive the Indiana Jones cycle without the period setting, the camp elements, or Spielberg's efficiency; director Jon Turteltaub just plods along, and the script by Marianne and Cormac Wibberley is equally poker-faced.
  17. No better than the first – which means it will probably be creamed by critics and make a jillion dollars. But really, standards are standards.
  18. Reviewed by: Mark Bell
    40
    Is the film fun? Yeah, in that campy kind of "The Mummy" way, but it is also weak as a sequel in that very campy "The Mummy Returns" type of way.
  19. Reviewed by: Andrew Osmond
    40
    A turgid action sequel that loses sight of plot and characters in its humourless efforts to impress.
  20. Book of Secrets isn't so much a romp as a long trudge through American history factoids and conspiracy-theory gobbledygook. Cool car chase, though.
  21. All you want from a movie like this, really, is a little brainless fun, and it keeps holding out on you. Everyone looks fatigued. Even Cage's toupee seems ambivalent about having signed on for a sequel.
  22. 38
    It's another flick about maps, landmarks and buried treasure that makes "The Da Vinci Code" look like TOLSTOY.
  23. Like a grade-school version of an Indiana Jones adventure.
  24. 38
    "Mindless" applies, and Book of Secrets is more like a tame, endlessly repetitive amusement park ride than a motion picture.
  25. Reviewed by: Eric Alt
    38
    The movie does feature a nice, teasing chemistry between veteran actors Voight and Mirren (who clearly relishes the chance to break out of stuffy melodrama), but this shallow, empty puzzle requires more than playful banter to satisfy audiences willing to pay to play.
  26. Reviewed by: Jason McBride
    38
    Throughout all this, Cage's lazy, dull performance – who knew there were so many ways to express smugness? – is enlivened only by poorly timed bursts of exuberance.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 138 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 81
  2. Negative: 31 out of 81
  1. Not as good as the original National Treasure, and even that was pretty horrific. The acting as always, is O.K. It's always the crazy and unbelievable storyline that ruined both movies. Full Review »
  2. GeorgeM
    2
    This is why ppl don't go to the movies anymore. This movie was just plain insulting to any logical mind. So many unbelievable situations- the car chase in London (where he uses a red light camera to take a picture of the clue, then tosses it overboard to get rid of the bad guys- come on), kidnapping the president, pouring water on the rocks to find the eagle....on an on...OMG someone in Hollywood was itching for their next dollar. Then they wander why ticket sales go down. Full Review »
  3. FrankV.
    3
    The movie was poor. Plot was full of flaws and holes and puzzle solving and action sequences (main part of the movie) are uninteresting. Even Cage looked bad. But I didn't expect anything else. Full Review »