User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 204 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 86 out of 204
  2. Negative: 46 out of 204

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Apr 23, 2016
    3
    Just like its predecessor, this movie is really terrible at pacing, story, acting and just about everything except its score and visuals. It is just as dumb as any Nicolas Cage flick.
  2. Aug 6, 2015
    9
    This sequel was really well-done. I am a history fan, so I thought they did an excellent job incorporating historical elements with the adventure/drama aspects. The car chases are hilarious, the discoveries breathtaking, all with an underlying mood of suspense. Nicholas Cage and Diane Kruger's relationship is really entertaining, they are one of the best movie couples! And since NicholasThis sequel was really well-done. I am a history fan, so I thought they did an excellent job incorporating historical elements with the adventure/drama aspects. The car chases are hilarious, the discoveries breathtaking, all with an underlying mood of suspense. Nicholas Cage and Diane Kruger's relationship is really entertaining, they are one of the best movie couples! And since Nicholas Cage is one of Hollywood's greatest actors, this movie was destined for success from the start! Expand
  3. Jun 6, 2015
    5
    Following much of the same formula as many sequels, Book of Secrets is largely a traditional follow up with the occasional act of freshness. Although, the addition of Helen Mirren wasn't half bad.
  4. Dec 14, 2014
    5
    Decently entertaining enough, but yes, it's screenplay is ridiculous. The cast is full of good actors, and there's always a lot happening, so you do have some incentive to watch it to the end once you start. Still though, it's not as good as the first. I'm not saying that the first one was exactly great, but it did have a sense of adventure, and a more interesting plot. It also gaveDecently entertaining enough, but yes, it's screenplay is ridiculous. The cast is full of good actors, and there's always a lot happening, so you do have some incentive to watch it to the end once you start. Still though, it's not as good as the first. I'm not saying that the first one was exactly great, but it did have a sense of adventure, and a more interesting plot. It also gave off more of the feeling of having gone on a journey than this one does. It's decent enough, but it's really not very memorable, and it suffers from sequelitis. (Sequel-eye-tis) Expand
  5. Aug 25, 2014
    6
    This movie wasn't any better or worse than the first one, in my opinion. Of course, if you haven't seen the first movie, you don't really get some of the character interaction (my own memory was a little rusty, so I did notice this).

    There are some neat moments and facts tossed around, but what really bugged me in the first movie as well was that even if there were questions and
    This movie wasn't any better or worse than the first one, in my opinion. Of course, if you haven't seen the first movie, you don't really get some of the character interaction (my own memory was a little rusty, so I did notice this).

    There are some neat moments and facts tossed around, but what really bugged me in the first movie as well was that even if there were questions and answers, the movie didn't REALLY bother to explain how exactly the characters reached certain conclusions. Of couse that would make it less like what most people want to go and watch, but for me, it was as if the makers of the movie just didn't bother to dig deep enough to dare and really SHOW how it's done.
    Expand
  6. May 3, 2014
    7
    When I first saw the movie in theatres, I felt disappointed. My first impression of the film is that it didn't have the same excitement as the first film, and I thought the vibe was too different. It was too tough to get around, and with Helen Mirren in the movie, I thought it was a bad sign.

    The first time I had seen the movie since opening day was earlier this week on Encore. My
    When I first saw the movie in theatres, I felt disappointed. My first impression of the film is that it didn't have the same excitement as the first film, and I thought the vibe was too different. It was too tough to get around, and with Helen Mirren in the movie, I thought it was a bad sign.

    The first time I had seen the movie since opening day was earlier this week on Encore. My opinion on this had been a lot better than the first time. I knew there was going to be no way it would be better than the first, so I wasn't expecting much. It actually was just as good as the first. I first thought the direction it was going didn't seem to be good, but I had to trust the film with the plot. It didn't really push any of my buttons and didn't become a dud of a sequel unlike TRANSFORMERS 2!
    Expand
  7. Mar 8, 2014
    10
    Another winner in the series, Book of Secrets is even better than the first film. It has more suspense and more action, and is very fun and entertaining to watch. I hope they make a 3rd.
  8. Mar 1, 2014
    8
    It's not as good as the previous one, because the ending was a little boring and the movie overall wasn't that entertaining as the previous National Treasure movie, but it's still a wonderful movie that got fabulous music, great actors (especially Bruce Greenwood and Nicolas Cage), an awesome story, a high amount of action and a great tempo.

    National Treasure: Book of Secrets gets a 8/10
  9. Nov 15, 2013
    6
    This sequel, "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is almost exactly like the first but with different locations. However, this film does have some excellent and unbelievable special effects that you wouldn't have imagined. Once again, though, the story is ridiculous and many historical information are inaccurate.
  10. Nov 13, 2013
    3
    A Book of Secrets on how to make you vomit.
    National Treasure creates a very unnecessary sequel to the mediocre prequel. A very illogical, uninteresting, soulless piece of trash formulated as a pure cash grab.
  11. May 26, 2013
    5
    I hate that this film is the exact same film as the first, but it's still fun. A bit sillier at times and slightly more unbelievable, but still a fun ride. Although I have no desire to buy this DVD ever, anytime the movie comes on TV, I normally watch it simply because it's entertaining.
  12. Sep 2, 2012
    4
    What a step down from the first. The movie came across very phony and seem to recycle themes from the first. Helen Mirren put on a performance that should have been up for a razzie.
  13. Sep 2, 2012
    6
    Most certainly not as good as the first. It still manages to repeat all the great qualities that made the first one good, except the the story line. just wasn't as interesting.
  14. Apr 9, 2012
    10
    Well to me this film was FANTASTIC. I know this might be shocking because of what other people are saying but i think Nicolas Cage was a great actor in National treasure 1 and 2. I loved every part of the film.
  15. Jan 27, 2012
    5
    The film is more funny and entertaining than the original and features solid performances from a great cast who have fantastic chemistry, but sadly at most times the film is way too over the top and unbelievable no matter how entertaining it actually is. I give this movie 57%.
  16. Dec 29, 2011
    4
    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.
  17. CRL
    Jul 30, 2011
    5
    It's not the original by any span of the imagination. It's about half as clever, half as funny, and the chain of events is less than half as plausible. Still, I did enjoy seeing a couple of the characters again, and every once in a while it would show a glimmer of the intriguing history and humor made the original so great.
  18. Apr 3, 2011
    2
    This film was painfully bad. The dialog was so poorly written that many of the lines are downright embarrassing. The shot sequences felt rushed and the performances were not engaging. I am all for suspending some sense of realism for the sake of an exciting story line but jeez, some of the stuff going on here is so unrealistic and so poorly executed, it's almost laughable! I do notThis film was painfully bad. The dialog was so poorly written that many of the lines are downright embarrassing. The shot sequences felt rushed and the performances were not engaging. I am all for suspending some sense of realism for the sake of an exciting story line but jeez, some of the stuff going on here is so unrealistic and so poorly executed, it's almost laughable! I do not understand Nicholas Cage as an actor. In this role, particularly, I do not understand his hair, his smugness or his delivery. The only saving grace of this film is the lovely Diane Kruger, who shines despite the ambivalence of her fellow actors, or maybe because of them. Expand
  19. Aug 23, 2010
    6
    Not as good as the first one but still decent. There was even more action and excitement in this one, but was a little more far-fetched. Also, it kind of bugged me that they didn't reveal anything in the book of secrets...
  20. JohnH.
    Aug 1, 2009
    6
    The last forty-five minutes of the film were fascinating and filled with adventure. But other than that the movie was unconparable to the first one. Unless you are really board and have nothing to do at home, I would probably not see this. It wasn't bad. It just was nothing like the original.
  21. BrandonT.
    Jun 27, 2008
    6
    This movie was very similar to the original, providing a good amount of humor along with some great fantasy elements and an obvious sequel push at the end. I found it as entertaining as its prequel, finding the concept of the series oddly appealing even though the scripts and story lines seem to be shoddy.
  22. GeorgeM
    Jun 11, 2008
    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 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. Expand
  23. ChristopherR.
    May 28, 2008
    9
    I thought this was a great continuation of the first movie. They didn't make it obvious that they had discovered the first treasure... just the Ferrari. Great action and good puzzles. Must see!
  24. CraigB
    May 23, 2008
    6
    One of those movies that you know is bad, but it's still enjoyable as long as you approach it open minded and not expecting it to be anything great. Nicholas Cage is a dreadful actor, it has to be said. Film is childish and far fetched but for some reason I just enjoyed it start to finish. It's odd.
  25. DeanP
    May 21, 2008
    7
    Hey, I wasn't looking for sophisticated going into this movie so I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a sucker for treasure hunts any day and this movie certainly delivers that.
  26. JayH.
    May 15, 2008
    7
    6.5/10. Great popcorn movie. It's fun, fast paced and entertaining. It mixes adventure, humor and mystery very well. The acting is fine, well photographed and edited. It's not meant to be deep and significant. Just sit back and have fun.
  27. GrahamS.
    May 7, 2008
    6
    Fun, but not a scratch on the first one.
  28. Gazcomsat
    Apr 18, 2008
    2
    I liked the first film but the sequel is just plain bad. Some of the scenes are just totally cringe-worthy particularly the one where Nick Gage pretends to lose his mind to get arrested. I found this and the so called argumentative banter between Voight and Mirren very uncomfortable to watch. I couldn't wait for this movie to be over.
  29. FrankV.
    Mar 31, 2008
    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.
  30. BradB.
    Feb 1, 2008
    7
    Very suspensful, satisfing sequel.
  31. ErraticC.
    Jan 31, 2008
    10
    A film for everyone except the nerdy "critics" who study every scene with a microscope searching for flaws. Once again, the average rating is obviously shenanigans. This film is great, and like its predecessor it has an actual plot, which makes it stand out among the gray sea of run-off-the-mill movies that rely on expensive scenery, overuse of special effects oh and excessive violence.
  32. AlisaH.
    Jan 29, 2008
    6
    This movie was acceptable, but it really didn't bring new elements to the franchise. I found the first movie more charming than the second, but it just didn't spark me as the first one did. The acting was good, not spectacular, Cage did a fine job but he looked like he was 50 in the story for supposedly being a few years(?) after the first one. The scenario with the bad guy was This movie was acceptable, but it really didn't bring new elements to the franchise. I found the first movie more charming than the second, but it just didn't spark me as the first one did. The acting was good, not spectacular, Cage did a fine job but he looked like he was 50 in the story for supposedly being a few years(?) after the first one. The scenario with the bad guy was almost generic, nothing very special but it had it's moments. It wasn't great, it wasn't bad, it was just another movie. Expand
  33. SabinaF.
    Jan 28, 2008
    9
    It´s a good and entertaining way of learning history. I liked the actors´ performances and I also enjoyed the scenarios shown.
  34. Jeremy
    Jan 20, 2008
    0
    Let me sum it up perfectly. A movie for idiots made by idiots. If you plan on seeing this turkey check your brains in at the door. Revolting!
  35. CamilleS.
    Jan 10, 2008
    8
    This certainly isn't an Academy Award winning movie and it's not nearly as good as the first, but BoS is an wholly entertaining popcorn flick. Yes, the premise is a lot less believable than that of the first, but it fulfills the criteria of a silly yet enjoyable movie. If you liked the first one, you'll like this as well, and if you're looking for a little This certainly isn't an Academy Award winning movie and it's not nearly as good as the first, but BoS is an wholly entertaining popcorn flick. Yes, the premise is a lot less believable than that of the first, but it fulfills the criteria of a silly yet enjoyable movie. If you liked the first one, you'll like this as well, and if you're looking for a little action/adventure, this is a great and fun movie to watch. Expand
  36. KirkL.
    Jan 8, 2008
    6
    Entertaining, tho it lost me at parts. All this trouble to clear an ancestor's name, yet it really doesn't explain how the name got cleared. Also, there never is a really good reason why the bad guy is after the treasure as feverishly as he is.
  37. AndresC.
    Jan 8, 2008
    2
    Braindead fun... the ending is an insult to pre -colombine history.
  38. Rasputin
    Jan 7, 2008
    0
    For this turkey of a movie to be number one at the box office three weeks in a row only goes to prove that we are a nation of sheep or that the advertising campaign sold us a pig in a poke. Either way this movie is downright bad from the lame script to the poor acting. Awful.
  39. BitBurn
    Jan 5, 2008
    7
    Well it's not the movie of the year but it's perfect for cheap-Tuesdays.
  40. RobS
    Jan 5, 2008
    8
    Its getting to the point now where people apparently cant go and enjoy movies anymore, they apparently have to all be oscar worthy/ art house/ or critically acclaimed for them to be any good. there is absolutely nothing wrong with national treasure 2, if you liked the first on you will more than likely like this. please learn how to deal
  41. AnnB.
    Jan 5, 2008
    6
    Pretty silly action/adventure stuff, with a lame story line. Still, it was an entertaining two hours if you left your brain at home.
  42. Amber
    Jan 5, 2008
    2
    What have they done? How do you take a formula that was so great in the original and completely ruin it? Somehow the produers of this awful movie have managed to do that. You need to be completely brain dead to believe this film. Just awful.
  43. Zenon
    Jan 4, 2008
    0
    A major disappointment of epic productions. I realize in an action adventure story that we have to suspend belief in entering the theater but this was just sooooo bad that no one could get into it. It was sleepwalking for the actors and one really felt embarassed for Helen Mirren. For someone of royal acting ability to take a part in this juvenile crass ridculous motion picture really A major disappointment of epic productions. I realize in an action adventure story that we have to suspend belief in entering the theater but this was just sooooo bad that no one could get into it. It was sleepwalking for the actors and one really felt embarassed for Helen Mirren. For someone of royal acting ability to take a part in this juvenile crass ridculous motion picture really hurt the most. Shame on you Hollywood for churning out this garbage. Expand
  44. ChadS.
    Jan 3, 2008
    4
    Past the mid-way point of "National Treasure: Book of Secrets", Ben(Nicolas Cage) needs a private audience with the president(Bruce Greenwood) so he seals themselves in a secret room much to the chagrin of the secret servicemen. This extra cloak of privacy hardly seems necessary since one of the president's handlers is asked to wait outside. The two men could whisper. It cheats to Past the mid-way point of "National Treasure: Book of Secrets", Ben(Nicolas Cage) needs a private audience with the president(Bruce Greenwood) so he seals themselves in a secret room much to the chagrin of the secret servicemen. This extra cloak of privacy hardly seems necessary since one of the president's handlers is asked to wait outside. The two men could whisper. It cheats to force action. To help normalize the preposterous, "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" has to play straight with its audience. It doesn't. Another instance of convolutional writing takes place at Mt. Vernon when our treasure hunters soak rocks with twelve-ounce litres of bottled water. To make their next clue self-evident, Emily(Helen Mirren) asks aloud, "Do we have to wet the whole area?" I laughed because it sounds like an ad-lib; a grand dame pointing out the fallacy of the scene. It's dumb luck that Abigail(Diane Kruger) chooses the right rock to wet. Imagine if Ben or Mitch(Ed Harris) insisted they search for the hidden instructions after the last bottle was emptied by using an alternate liquid? But that would be too cheeky for a film that takes itself way too seriously. Seriously, you wonder how the actors can keep a straight face. This is theater of the absurd. Expand
  45. BenB.
    Jan 3, 2008
    4
    Here's the problem with 'National Treasure: Book of Secrets'- it's a complete drag to sit through. And judging by the actors on screen, it was a drag for them to film- not one moment of this film is either genuinely exciting, heart pounding, or nerve-jangling- in short, it's just like the original. Now, I kinda-sorta-maybe tolerated the first one, simply because Here's the problem with 'National Treasure: Book of Secrets'- it's a complete drag to sit through. And judging by the actors on screen, it was a drag for them to film- not one moment of this film is either genuinely exciting, heart pounding, or nerve-jangling- in short, it's just like the original. Now, I kinda-sorta-maybe tolerated the first one, simply because it at least embraced it's ludicrousy, but this sequel takes itself so seriously that it's near impossible to enjoy. Ed Harris turns in a semi-interesting performance, and the screnwriters were smart to try and expand Nic Cage's parent's love relationship... but when the rest of the movie looks, feels, and plain out is as tired as this reigned in follow-up... well, let's just hope that 'National Treasure 3' brings the fun. Expand
  46. JulieL
    Jan 3, 2008
    1
    Brainless twaddle, which is usually fun, but in this movie was merely an empty space into which many dumb and lusterless lines substituted for dialogue and frenetic, physically impossible stunts substituted for action. It reminds me of Mission Impossible Two, but without the memorable theme song. I hope they get it right on number three. Also, if you are Native American, you will despise Brainless twaddle, which is usually fun, but in this movie was merely an empty space into which many dumb and lusterless lines substituted for dialogue and frenetic, physically impossible stunts substituted for action. It reminds me of Mission Impossible Two, but without the memorable theme song. I hope they get it right on number three. Also, if you are Native American, you will despise this movie and the blue-coat it rode in on. Expand
  47. Virgina
    Jan 2, 2008
    0
    I was robbed. This is a movie for mindless simpletons.
  48. IanR
    Jan 2, 2008
    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.
  49. THW
    Jan 2, 2008
    4
    Unlike the first National Treasure in which the events they talked about and the clues seemed quite plausible, that is not the case with this one. Unless you're a small child, nothing in the movie is believable, the clues/chases are dumbed down, and the suspense that was so rampant in the first film is nowhere to be seen in this one. A boring way to spend 2 hours.
  50. KevinD.
    Jan 1, 2008
    5
    though seemingly exactly the same all around, it was simply worse than the first one, which was only slightly better than your average adventure flick. Still, it's decent quality family-friendly entertainment, which is hard to find these days without stupid animated animals and the same cliche characters. I did have a serious problem with the plot. It seemed as if the heros had to though seemingly exactly the same all around, it was simply worse than the first one, which was only slightly better than your average adventure flick. Still, it's decent quality family-friendly entertainment, which is hard to find these days without stupid animated animals and the same cliche characters. I did have a serious problem with the plot. It seemed as if the heros had to follow the same path as the first film, but they got into it different. Proving a historical man's innocence and finding another buried treasure just didn't click for me, or the movie (except for one line from Voight). Overall, it's halfway decent and fun, but ia waste of talent from Cage, Voight, and Mirren. Expand
  51. RamzeezeB.
    Jan 1, 2008
    5
    average movie only useful to pass the time. i sort of wish it was worse because then i would have had fun poking fun at it. unfortunately that wasn't the case. but if ur expecting a lot.....then don't watch it cuz its not a lot.
  52. Ladyfinger
    Jan 1, 2008
    0
    The success of this sequel at the box office only goes to prove that once the first movie is a hit no matter how truly awful the subsequent movies are it really doesn't matter. As much as we loved the original the characters, the polar opposite is true with the sequel. It is simply awful with bad acting, writing and directing. In truth it is a movie for idiots. You need to suspend The success of this sequel at the box office only goes to prove that once the first movie is a hit no matter how truly awful the subsequent movies are it really doesn't matter. As much as we loved the original the characters, the polar opposite is true with the sequel. It is simply awful with bad acting, writing and directing. In truth it is a movie for idiots. You need to suspend all belief before entering the theater. And even then the story isn't even the slightest bit plausible. They will make another and my recommendation is to wait to see what the moviegoers like us say before putting down our hard earned dollars to watch garbage like this. I feel so cheated. Expand
  53. Beatrice
    Dec 30, 2007
    0
    Who writes this stuff? Just dreadful.
  54. JaycenA.
    Dec 29, 2007
    10
    Super Entertaining. Alot of fun. What Movies are all about!!!
  55. Totob.
    Dec 29, 2007
    9
    Almost so good than the first one movie, but it is not for critics!!, is for people who go to the theaters to enjoy a good couple of hours!.
  56. jACK
    Dec 29, 2007
    0
    REFUND!
  57. mitchellk.
    Dec 29, 2007
    8
    I have to admit I was very hesitant about seeing this movie. I had read reviews by critics and moviegoers, and figured it would be a bomb. I've found Metacritic's average scores to be on the money in the past. Certainly not some of the stuff, or even most of the stuff of the two National Treasure movies is real, so going to a movie like this then complaining about how it seemed I have to admit I was very hesitant about seeing this movie. I had read reviews by critics and moviegoers, and figured it would be a bomb. I've found Metacritic's average scores to be on the money in the past. Certainly not some of the stuff, or even most of the stuff of the two National Treasure movies is real, so going to a movie like this then complaining about how it seemed unbelievable is self defeating. Understand that beliefs of reality must be suspended somewhat prior to seeing a movie like this, then enter or don't. That said, I found this movie quite entertaining. It had suspense, adventure, and comedy. It was even thrilling at times. The audience actually clapped after the show so I know I'm not alone on this one. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Expand
  58. [Anonymous]
    Dec 28, 2007
    1
    The first one was bad and this one is worse. Dumbest. Plot. Ever.
  59. Cynthia
    Dec 28, 2007
    1
    Formulaic and dull.
  60. danh.
    Dec 28, 2007
    4
    I was mesmerized by Nicolas Cage's fake hair. Does he really think it looks good? Does the director/producer/anyone tell him it looks good? How come critics don't ever mention the distracting hair pieces of Nick Cage and John Travolta?
  61. Bobbie
    Dec 28, 2007
    0
    I just came back from seeing this travesty. All I can say is REFUND. How can you take something so good and turn out a movie that is this BAD? I feel so cheated. Shame on Hollywood.
  62. tristin
    Dec 28, 2007
    0
    reminded me of a really bad disney channel movie. don't go see it its a waste of time and money.
  63. Freakster
    Dec 27, 2007
    0
    Jason stop sniffing that glue. Obviously you are having fun as you want other moviegoers to be tortured as we were. This movie is a total turkey devoid of anything worth mentioning in a positive review.
  64. JasonQ.
    Dec 27, 2007
    10
    That was beyond. It was amazing much better than the first one. I do not know what the other guys were talking about when they wree giving it low scores this is a great movie, take your kids, your parents, even your wife it was darn great!
  65. JimboH.
    Dec 27, 2007
    3
    You have to REALLY suspend your disbelief.
  66. KingC.
    Dec 27, 2007
    1
    Great special effects for a video game. But for a movie? A HS kid can write a better more plausable script than this. And the actors walked through their lines as if they were coloring by the numbers.
  67. NeilL.
    Dec 27, 2007
    3
    If you have an IQ of 60 or less, this film is for you.
  68. StephenM.
    Dec 27, 2007
    8
    A good entertaining movie in the tradition of Indiana Jones
  69. Elena
    Dec 27, 2007
    2
    I loved the original but this is so polar opposite of the fun and excitement that was captured in the first movie. It is awful and without any suspense whatsover.
  70. MelissaM.
    Dec 26, 2007
    1
    Lame.
  71. Andrew
    Dec 26, 2007
    0
    If Stan could give this abomination a 9 then I should be able to give it a minus 90. No suspense whatsoever as whoever wrote this script and directed it must have read Sequels for Dummies. Awful effort all the way around. They should be ashamed to turn out this kind of trash.
  72. NickA.
    Dec 26, 2007
    7
    Though often implausible, Turteltaub
  73. StanB.
    Dec 26, 2007
    9
    I am surprised to find such venom in the other comments. Agreed that the first film was better (usually the case with sequels), however it was a solid effort. I think that those who are disappointed so much are frustrated wanna be critics.
  74. Victor
    Dec 25, 2007
    4
    Much ado about nothing. Slow tedious and mundane. The first movie was great but this was the pits.
  75. RobertI.
    Dec 25, 2007
    4
    Oh so lame, with irony that splatters the walls like so much mud. Ugh, and double ugh.
  76. Agnes
    Dec 25, 2007
    0
    Leave it to Hollywood to totally screw it up. The story is unbelievable and appears to be written in about an hour. And the acting was just as bad sans Helen Mirren but she must be embarassed to have made such a terrible movie. Big Buzz because of the PR lured us in but word of mouth will quickly kill this Christmas turkey.
  77. Goffy
    Dec 24, 2007
    1
    Down right awful! They should be ashamed to turn out a product this bad.
  78. Joe
    Dec 24, 2007
    4
    This movie was incredibly boring for the first hour, although it picked up a bit toward the end. Helen Mirren was great (as always) but there were more holes in the plot than in a slice of swiss cheese.
  79. Tammy
    Dec 24, 2007
    3
    Bland just a repeat of the first one without much credibility to the storyline. Not believable and without suspense. Most of the actors walk through their lines. An example is Harvey Keitel who basically does a cameo in this one. If they had edited him out of the first and put those same lines in this one it would have been the exact same thing. Just a bad movie.
  80. Arden
    Dec 24, 2007
    2
    How does Hollywood take an absolute can't miss follow-up to the original and totally destroy it and the characters. Everything we loved about the first movie is gone in Book of Secrets. Think of the Jaws trilogy after the original and you have the exact same formula that doomed a classic. Nothing here than a bunch of flawed actors collecting a paycheck. And where did they find Riley How does Hollywood take an absolute can't miss follow-up to the original and totally destroy it and the characters. Everything we loved about the first movie is gone in Book of Secrets. Think of the Jaws trilogy after the original and you have the exact same formula that doomed a classic. Nothing here than a bunch of flawed actors collecting a paycheck. And where did they find Riley as he is awful! Expand
  81. Jared
    Dec 24, 2007
    1
    You have to be kidding? The first movie was so good that I couldn't wait to see the sequel. And as good as the first one was that is how bad this movie is. You start looking at your watch as this is a grown up version of a video game and a bad one at that. Nothing is realistic, the actors are never in real danger and the ending is ridiculous. Nothing in this movie works although you You have to be kidding? The first movie was so good that I couldn't wait to see the sequel. And as good as the first one was that is how bad this movie is. You start looking at your watch as this is a grown up version of a video game and a bad one at that. Nothing is realistic, the actors are never in real danger and the ending is ridiculous. Nothing in this movie works although you want to love it. Terrible writing, directing and acting. Quite frankly it is boring and that is hard to do with an action adventure movie. Avoid. Expand
  82. Fantasy
    Dec 24, 2007
    3
    As much as I loved the original this sequel is disappointing. It's basically a continuation of the first Treasue except that the nervous suspense that kept us on the edge of our seats is totally absent. In its place is juvenile humor as the actors simply walk through their paces to collect a big fat paycheck. The movie is like one big joke that is repeated and repeated adnauseum As much as I loved the original this sequel is disappointing. It's basically a continuation of the first Treasue except that the nervous suspense that kept us on the edge of our seats is totally absent. In its place is juvenile humor as the actors simply walk through their paces to collect a big fat paycheck. The movie is like one big joke that is repeated and repeated adnauseum until it is no longer funny nor suspenseful. And Ed Harris as the :bad guy" isn't that bad at all which makes the movie even worse. Theflick is forgotten the minute you leave the theater. Expand
  83. MattO.
    Dec 23, 2007
    5
    First one was better.
  84. S.J.Jones
    Dec 23, 2007
    10
    This movie is a good, fast-paced action flick. It is the type of movie Hollywood needs to make to bring audiences back to the theatres! It doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is--a good, old-fashioned, ENTERTAINMENT vehicle! Nicolas Cage and Justin Bartha were great! Helen Mirren and Jon Voight were delightful as the feuding exes. Helen Mirren is such a fantastic This movie is a good, fast-paced action flick. It is the type of movie Hollywood needs to make to bring audiences back to the theatres! It doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is--a good, old-fashioned, ENTERTAINMENT vehicle! Nicolas Cage and Justin Bartha were great! Helen Mirren and Jon Voight were delightful as the feuding exes. Helen Mirren is such a fantastic actress! She shines in a small, supporting role. Thank you, Jon Turteltaub, for making a family-oriented, but thoroughly enjoyable film!! Expand
  85. KatherineH.
    Dec 23, 2007
    8
    Good clean family fun. Enjoyable for movie buffs and even at times thrilling. Good holiday movie to see!
  86. JoshW.
    Dec 23, 2007
    8
    This was a great popcorn movie... Some unbelievable parts but it was forgiven by the funnier parts.
  87. ChristopherG.
    Dec 22, 2007
    8
    a good fun movie, which flows along with wit and action and follows along with various mysteries with graceful answers. People who expect the crew to reinvent the plot should not be surprised, if they keep with a proven formula. Nicolas Cage does a good job in his returning role, I enjoyed the additon of Helen Mirren to add depth to Jon Voight's character with their bickering and adventure.
  88. AnthonyP.
    Dec 22, 2007
    8
    The movie was good the plot was a bit thin but was there, although the movie was based on the same pricnable as the first its nice to see that these kind of movies are bing made, its being made for the kids in us all, the puzzles are thought provoking and entertaining, it keeps you wanting more, there is little action to speak of, and it mostly happens at the beginning. for those wanting The movie was good the plot was a bit thin but was there, although the movie was based on the same pricnable as the first its nice to see that these kind of movies are bing made, its being made for the kids in us all, the puzzles are thought provoking and entertaining, it keeps you wanting more, there is little action to speak of, and it mostly happens at the beginning. for those wanting to see a good movie with the kids (including your self) its somthing worth seeing but if you want to be critical about everyting and want the realism of acutal tresure hunting, you should shy a way from this movie. Expand
  89. IanGuss
    Dec 21, 2007
    4
    Great special effects but the story made little sense and the supporting Riley Poole is extremely annoying and unfunny!
  90. JudyT.
    Dec 21, 2007
    5
    Another mediocre movie by Hollywood. The chase scene were ridiculous and the pivotal we're going to die scene was tailor made for a video game.
  91. JackJ.
    Dec 21, 2007
    6
    Good afternoon distraction, needs more Helen Mirren screen time to add a bit of class to this movie. Nice warm up to Indiana Jones 4.
  92. EdawrdA.
    Dec 20, 2007
    10
    I have been seeing many, many over the top reviews on this film, and none of them I agree with, this movie was great yeah, one of the year's best, but they keep on saying its an unexpected masterpiece. Well, I thought it was good too, but the experience wasn't that meaningful and didn't inspire much of anything, it was normall, and seemed a bit low in standards, the acting I have been seeing many, many over the top reviews on this film, and none of them I agree with, this movie was great yeah, one of the year's best, but they keep on saying its an unexpected masterpiece. Well, I thought it was good too, but the experience wasn't that meaningful and didn't inspire much of anything, it was normall, and seemed a bit low in standards, the acting wasn't that great, but the characters in this one get more involved with the situation, their getting more deep into problems they have to face. It makes this movie interesting and very cool. There are many bad spots of acting, especailly by NICOLAS CAGE, but becides all that, this movie easily deserves a 10. Its that simple, this is a masterpiece, I'm not joking, it truly is. It is very good. I was entertained, amused, and the locations are more exciting to look at, the camera work showed the importance of every location. I was impressed. All you got to do is call it the new Indiana Jones or one really, engaging, exciting movie. Expand
  93. EvanC.
    Dec 17, 2007
    10
    A great sequel, so far, the greatest I have seen this year yet. Not by far though, it got me more by a few measurments better thinking of putting this before ratatouille and bourne ultimatum. But this is worh it, having an okay orginal, I am quite impressed, this is noisier and way more intense fun. I loved it, the acting could be so much better, that is why I would rate this 10, because A great sequel, so far, the greatest I have seen this year yet. Not by far though, it got me more by a few measurments better thinking of putting this before ratatouille and bourne ultimatum. But this is worh it, having an okay orginal, I am quite impressed, this is noisier and way more intense fun. I loved it, the acting could be so much better, that is why I would rate this 10, because literally I rate this a 9.6/10, but 10 is the closest range so. Expand
  94. JimJamC.
    Dec 17, 2007
    10
    National Treasure: Book of Secrets in a nutshell:::: Ben Gates searching for another Gates-family treasure, although as always, the clues are lead through an easily understandable plot. This is definitely worth a 10/10, I will be laughing once the critics start reviewing this movie because they apparently dreadfully hated National Treasure (the originol). "Why would I make this up?" This National Treasure: Book of Secrets in a nutshell:::: Ben Gates searching for another Gates-family treasure, although as always, the clues are lead through an easily understandable plot. This is definitely worth a 10/10, I will be laughing once the critics start reviewing this movie because they apparently dreadfully hated National Treasure (the originol). "Why would I make this up?" This movie is one my favourites, and actually is an inch better than the first. New cool looking historical concepts, not as over the top Social studies boring stuff like the first. This is more technical, and there are bigger and more motive fun script-loads of crime happening this time around. The acting was okay, I would rate this movie a 9, but I love it so much. Nicolas cage, his lines and part of focuss in this script is very weak, his acting is not so good. He did well in the first one, but after watching this, all he is a frustration, I don't like him as much, and the humor is a little darker, but there isn't much of a mystery to it, its basically all intense action, and a pretty intelligent adventure. It has the same ideal as the first, one of Ben's aquiattances turn against him and searches for the treasure himself. Not as many bullets are flying around, but not much of a family movie as well, there is a bit of I don't know's in their, when you just don't know, because you thought it shouldn't have been done that way. But involving bigger secrets, interesting stories, and fun adventure going from place to place, this is a more risk-taking leap across American history. Expand
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 26
  2. Negative: 6 out of 26
  1. 70
    This ain’t "The Da Vinci Code," folks, and the reason you can tell is that it’s actually quite entertaining.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.