CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › NATIONAL TREASURE discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NATIONAL TREASURE discussion

post #1 of 102
9/6/04 at 5:24pm
Thread Starter 
I know that many of you have had your doubts about this film, but I'm a pretty huge Sean Bean fan and have not seen any single on of his movies that I didn't like, which is the primary reason why I'll probably be seeing this.

For those of you that know nothing about the film, please refer to Coming Soon's page for the film


Thoughts??? Questions?? Concerns???
Reply
post #2 of 102
9/6/04 at 6:55pm
Someone has to compile a ratio of Sean Bean Movies where he lives to Sean Bean movies where he dies.

Goldeneye, Equilibrium, Lord of the Rings they show the part where he gets killed in EVERY film.
Reply
post #3 of 102
9/6/04 at 7:01pm
Is this supposed to be a comedy? Because the plot is the stupidest thing I've heard all day.
Reply
post #4 of 102
9/6/04 at 11:35pm
I'm not gonna rush to see Bean play second banana to Cage. I'd rather stick my copy of Extremely Dangerous in the DVD player for the 10th time.
Reply
post #5 of 102
9/7/04 at 12:11am
"I'm gunna steal the declaration of independence."

I'm a Bruckheimer whore/disciple, so I want to see this.
Reply
post #6 of 102
9/7/04 at 12:14am
There's a treasure map....on the declaration of independence. Bruck's going to lose it all.
Reply
post #7 of 102
9/7/04 at 12:48am
The trailer made the film look like a silly and disposable (but fun) action flick. In other words, typical Bruck. I'll see it.
Reply
post #8 of 102
9/7/04 at 1:21am
I can't gather up the energy to give enough of a damn about this movie to really tear into its ludicrous plot, so I'll just leave it at this:

Fuck this film.
Reply
post #9 of 102
9/7/04 at 3:57am
Y'know, when that Writers' Guild Strike (in which the writers of Hollywood folded like poorly made tents after failing to secure the A FILM BY credit) threatened to hit a few years ago, a number of producers scrapped up a few really high concept ideas, most likely scribbled on cocktail napkins during coke whore fuck sessions, that involved familiar stars in fairly familiar and limp situations, which would be easy to duplicate had the WGA refused to work, making these films rather easy to create.

Although the strike was averted (i.e. writers gave up), some of these ideas survived, which is why we got 50 FIRST DATES, ALONG CAME POLLY, and now NATIONAL TREASURE, a dumb action movie revolving around one the most famous documents of all time tastlessly used for the sake of blowing shit up. For the sake of all screenwriters, of which I am one, I will be boycotting NATIONAL TREASURE, partly out of respect for a well-written movie that wasn't greenlit while NATIONAL TREASURE sped into production, but mostly because I don't spend money on shit.
Reply
post #10 of 102
9/7/04 at 1:42pm
After having American History forced down our throats since we were 12, the whole idea of a "what you never knew you never knew" story is just a bit ridiculous. OK, a lot ridiculous. Especially for a history nerd like me.

There's a reason treasure-hunting movies have always featured American adventurers sent to Egypt or Africa or China. Since a different culture isn't the kind of thing that we're totally familiar with, it still has that Shiny And New feel to it, while good ol' American history doesn't have much more to offer than dusty pioneers in covered wagons.

So what's Bruck's solution to this? Send our heros to every single exotic location in the world. Wait -- this is a movie glorifying America's founding fathers how?
Reply
post #11 of 102
9/7/04 at 6:30pm
I love The Rock, like Con Air and despise Gone in 60 seconds. Bruck/Cage are 2 for 3 in my book so I will give it a look. Looks like Indy Jones meets Tomb Raider meets Thomas Crown or something. I don't know what that really says...but I don't hink it can be worse than 60 Seconds.
Reply
post #12 of 102
9/7/04 at 7:28pm
This movie will do well because they are selling it as a sort of Da Vinci Code-type movie. Conspiracy, The Templar Knights, Mystic Symbolism, Historical Treasures that are more than they seem, Ancient Secrets that certain people/groups are willing protect/obtain by extreme measures. Given the success of the Da Vinci Code, I think there will be a huge audience for this type of movie.
Reply
post #13 of 102
9/7/04 at 8:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
This movie will do well because they are selling it as a sort of Da Vinci Code-type movie. Conspiracy, The Templar Knights, Mystic Symbolism, Historical Treasures that are more than they seem, Ancient Secrets that certain people/groups are willing protect/ascertain by extreme measures. Given the success of the Da Vinci Code, I think there will be a huge audience for this type of movie.
Actually, the exact quote from Bruckheimer was something to the affect of, "Chances are, the people who read DaVinci Code won't be interested in this, and the people who do see this movie likely wouldn't have read it anyway."

I'm not sure who that insults more, but whatever.
Reply
post #14 of 102
9/7/04 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabfunk
Actually, the exact quote from Bruckheimer was something to the affect of, "Chances are, the people who read DaVinci Code won't be interested in this, and the people who do see this movie likely wouldn't have read it anyway."

I'm not sure who that insults more, but whatever.
Well, I hate to disagree with the Bruck, but there are a lot of parallels between the Da Vinci Code and the way they are selling this movie. Just because Bruck has never read a book doesn't mean his audience hasn't either. Anecdotal, but a guy in my office who saw the trailer said "Cool. That looks like the DaVinci Code. Can't wait to see it." I imagine he won't be alone.
Reply
post #15 of 102
9/7/04 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Well, I hate to disagree with the Bruck, but there are a lot of parallels between the Da Vinci Code and the way they are selling this movie.
I fully agree. When I first caught the trailer just after finishing Da Vinci Code, the immediate thought I had was someone's jacking Dan Brown's narrative style.
Reply
post #16 of 102
9/14/04 at 7:40pm

A little bit cheesy

Was it just me or was the trailer for this movie just plain cheesy? I guess i just expect more from nic cage, i think he's a talented actor, but this just looks like doggy fodder. Who am i kidding it's, bruckheimer, i'll catch it in a matinee.
Reply
post #17 of 102
9/19/04 at 6:01pm
So, let me get this straight. People here don't like fun treasure-hunt action movies? It always amazes me what movies get an unqualified, "dude, I'll see that!" versus those that get a "boy, that looks like shit" label around here.

To me this looks like a cool romp with a refreshing gimmick that hasn't been done before.

Bruckheimer seems to be in his "I love history" phase right now what with the release of King Arthur and now National Treasure. Anything that gets audiences to think about history is cool to me, even if the central conceit is a little wacky.
Reply
post #18 of 102
9/19/04 at 9:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernd
So, let me get this straight. People here don't like fun treasure-hunt action movies? It always amazes me what movies get an unqualified, "dude, I'll see that!" versus those that get a "boy, that looks like shit" label around here.

To me this looks like a cool romp with a refreshing gimmick that hasn't been done before.

Bruckheimer seems to be in his "I love history" phase right now what with the release of King Arthur and now National Treasure. Anything that gets audiences to think about history is cool to me, even if the central conceit is a little wacky.
There's quite a big difference between fun treasure-hunt movies and then being flat-out convoluted.

This film falls in the latter category.

I mean, come on--clues in the fucking dollar bill? Are they giving this any thought at all?
Reply
post #19 of 102
9/19/04 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by g-dude
There's quite a big difference between fun treasure-hunt movies and then being flat-out convoluted.

This film falls in the latter category.

I mean, come on--clues in the fucking dollar bill? Are they giving this any thought at all?
Actually there's alot of stuff on the dollar bill that makes one wonder why the hell it's there???
Reply
post #20 of 102
9/19/04 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JenGe Chick Flick Destroyer
Actually there's alot of stuff on the dollar bill that makes one wonder why the hell it's there???
Me as well, but I can't accept it as a clue from our Founding Fathers to go globe-trotting for a treasure, mainly because the current design of the dollar bill wasn't even friggin around in any shape or form back then. If you're gonna use history as your backdrop, you can't make leaps of logic *that* big.
Reply
post #21 of 102
9/20/04 at 2:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by g-dude
Me as well, but I can't accept it as a clue from our Founding Fathers to go globe-trotting for a treasure, mainly because the current design of the dollar bill wasn't even friggin around in any shape or form back then. If you're gonna use history as your backdrop, you can't make leaps of logic *that* big.
How do you know that's the leap of logic?? Have you seen the film or read the script yet??
Reply
post #22 of 102
9/20/04 at 3:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by g-dude
Me as well, but I can't accept it as a clue from our Founding Fathers to go globe-trotting for a treasure, mainly because the current design of the dollar bill wasn't even friggin around in any shape or form back then. If you're gonna use history as your backdrop, you can't make leaps of logic *that* big.
It's not the design that's important, it's the symbols on the bill. The Great Seal (with the pyramid reverse) dates back to the founding of the country.

Honestly, if you're going to use the history as your reason to bash the film, you can't make mistakes *that* big.
Reply
post #23 of 102
9/20/04 at 1:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernd
It's not the design that's important, it's the symbols on the bill. The Great Seal (with the pyramid reverse) dates back to the founding of the country.

Honestly, if you're going to use the history as your reason to bash the film, you can't make mistakes *that* big.
Thank you for saying exactly what I was going to say. You should really watch the smart trailer on the official website, they give you a brief history lesson w/ each part of the trailer. From what I recollect of high school and college history, most of it seems pretty accurate.

It's just a movie -- one has to suspend a bit of disbelief to enjoy them.
Reply
post #24 of 102
9/20/04 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Just because Bruck has never read a book doesn't mean his audience hasn't either. Anecdotal, but a guy in my office who saw the trailer said "Cool. That looks like the DaVinci Code. Can't wait to see it." I imagine he won't be alone.
Wait, the DaVinci Code is a good book? Since when?

My opinion of the book aside, you're right, this kind of looks like the same thing. Unless I hear raves about it, I'll probably save this one for its eventual, speedy dvd release.
Reply
post #25 of 102
9/20/04 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMushnik
Wait, the DaVinci Code is a good book? Since when?
Since it's been at the top of the bestsellers list for over a year. That's what we call "legs" in the movie biz and that means that word of mouth is killer.
Reply
post #26 of 102
9/21/04 at 4:18am
I finally remembered what this reminds me of.

The Simpsons episode where Homer digs up the White House looking for Lincoln's Gold.

I swear, if the "Treasure" turns out to be a speech by George Washington on the wonders of democracy, this movie will have "future comedy classic" written all over it.
Reply
post #27 of 102
9/23/04 at 12:32pm
Thread Starter 
New national treasure stills linked to the front page of IGN...

I still think that this movie looks like a lot of fun. It's not up against anything else that looks remotely appealing the weekend that it opens, so I'll more than likely be seeing it.

I wonder why all the stills are of Nicolas Cage....though Harvey Keitel's listed on the cast, I haven't seen him featured in anything.
Reply
post #28 of 102
9/25/04 at 4:18am
I don't understand the hate. Looks like a pretty goddamned fun movie. I only fear that there won't be enough Revolutionary Era style booby traps.
Reply
post #29 of 102
9/25/04 at 8:18pm
Jon Turteltaub is directing this? The Michael Bay MTV era of Bruckheimer movies is dead. It'll probably do better than King Arthur, too.
Reply
post #30 of 102
9/26/04 at 3:19am
I usually hate Bruck movies, but there is something so absurd about the premise of this one that I'm drawn to it. All his movies have stupid premises, but this is beyond stupid. This is like, what-were-they-thinking-I've-got-to-see-this stupid.

Still, something about the fact that it's Bruckheimer makes me not want me to give it my money. I'll probably wait for DVD and rent it.
Reply
post #31 of 102
9/29/04 at 7:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl Zero
I usually hate Bruck movies, but there is something so absurd about the premise of this one that I'm drawn to it. All his movies have stupid premises, but this is beyond stupid. This is like, what-were-they-thinking-I've-got-to-see-this stupid.

Still, something about the fact that it's Bruckheimer makes me not want me to give it my money. I'll probably wait for DVD and rent it.

Of course the premise isn't the most believable, but still, it looks pretty fun. That's all. not all movies have to be these serious, believable epics to be enjoyable.
Reply
post #32 of 102
9/29/04 at 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa_simpson
not all movies have to be these serious, believable epics to be enjoyable.
When did I say that? I like plenty of stupid movies but I just don't usually happen to like Bruck's. I did say that I would eventually give this one a go, though. That's saying something.
Reply
post #33 of 102
10/4/04 at 1:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl Zero
When did I say that? I like plenty of stupid movies but I just don't usually happen to like Bruck's. I did say that I would eventually give this one a go, though. That's saying something.
I never said that you said that -- but I've found that a lot of people are saying "this looks so bad because it looks so farfetched" , so that response wasn't directed towards you.

I heard a new trailer was attached w/ some movie or another this weekend -- anyone see it?
Reply
post #34 of 102
10/4/04 at 3:36pm
This movie looks dumb. I'm saving my money. It will be on TV two weeks after it's gone from theaters.
Reply
post #35 of 102
10/18/04 at 12:47pm
Thread Starter 
I think that National Treasure is going to surprise a lot of people. It's got a lot of starpower and its family friendly for the holidays. I guess we'll see after it's released.

I don't think it looks "dumb" at all, could be a lot of fun.
Reply
post #36 of 102
10/19/04 at 2:36pm
From Dark Horizons, 10 minutes of footage on MovieFone:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/franch...altreasure.adp
Reply
post #37 of 102
10/19/04 at 7:31pm
That has to be the single worst jump cut I have ever seen. What the hell was that, Lawrence of Arabia for dumbasses?

These Jerry Bruckheimer productions are becoming less and less like movies and more like assembly line products. As if the poor coverage and cheap CGi debris wasn't enough... even the synthesizer music sounds like a hackjob.

Fuck this movie.
Reply
post #38 of 102
10/19/04 at 9:19pm
I love how Plummer's sole job is to spew exposition to explain exactly why this ludicrious plot is suppossed to make sense. It kinda leaves out how the treasure goes from 13th Century Crusade knights to Columbus, or why it was so important to get it over to America, or why they decided to rip off The Man Who Would Be King with the whole "Masons hiding a treasure" angle.

Cage's speedy reasoning that the map is on the Declaration of Independence is laughable. He goes from the clue "iron pen" to 100% sure it's on the back of the Declaration in about 45 seconds.

Like I said before: Fuck this film.
Reply
post #39 of 102
10/19/04 at 9:56pm
Did you ever think that this footage is pieced together from the film and is not the final cut?

No, of course you hadn't thought that. Why think of something that goes against your "boy this film's gonna suck" theory?
Reply
post #40 of 102
10/19/04 at 11:01pm
This movie looks about as fun as a root canal. The trailer was awful. I'm still trying to shake that I saw Bean in this. Love the guy, love that he gets work and is getting paid but I hate to see him in a lame piece of work like this.
Reply
post #41 of 102
10/22/04 at 6:07am
Christopher Plummer's voiceover reminds me of Ian McKellen doing a voiceover in Fellowship of the Ring.

(which is exactly where that scene in NT is stolen from)


The group of knights even lift there swords in the air just like dwarfs do in the begining of Fellowship...



"They couldn't let the treasure fall into the hands of the British"

"Over time the clues were lost or forgotten, untill only one remained!" OMG


sound familiar?




Bruckheimer rules
Reply
post #42 of 102
10/28/04 at 3:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker
This movie looks about as fun as a root canal. The trailer was awful. I'm still trying to shake that I saw Bean in this. Love the guy, love that he gets work and is getting paid but I hate to see him in a lame piece of work like this.

I've never seen Sean Bean in a movie that I DIDN'T like -- plus, I'm a huge harvey keitel fan. Such being said, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I guess we'll see when the reviews start pouring in at some point in the next week and a half or so.

Given what its up against, I'll prob be seeing National Treasure opening weekend.
Reply
post #43 of 102
10/28/04 at 6:03pm
The trailer was beyond stupid, but I'm strangely attracted to this for some odd reason. Maybe Bruck's tapped into some new form of mass visual hypnotism and is putting it in his trailers.
Reply
post #44 of 102
10/29/04 at 3:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt45
The trailer was beyond stupid, but I'm strangely attracted to this for some odd reason. Maybe Bruck's tapped into some new form of mass visual hypnotism and is putting it in his trailers.
The new TV spots are better, at least I think so.
Reply
post #45 of 102
10/30/04 at 3:49am
"The dollar bill is trying to tell me something," uttered seemingly without a trace of irony, is the greatest line ever.
Reply
post #46 of 102
10/30/04 at 3:58am
lol! The tv spots aren't that good but they're better than that trailer.
Reply
post #47 of 102
11/1/04 at 6:44am
That was, bar none, probably the dumbest film clip I've ever seen.
Reply
post #48 of 102
11/4/04 at 5:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LlamaRama
That was, bar none, probably the dumbest film clip I've ever seen.
To each his own, i guess. I liked it...i thought it was fun.

How do we think this is going to do on opening weekend?
Reply
post #49 of 102
11/4/04 at 6:44pm
Wow. Nicolas Cage really likes money.

I'm loading up the 10 minute preview right now. Have mercy, Bruck.
Reply
post #50 of 102
11/4/04 at 11:51pm
Ahh it doesn't look that bad.. I think it is an extreme rip-off of DaVinci code and I think that Bruck is downplaying the comparison so he can avoid lawsuit..

Bruck/Cage work well in action.. Not going to win any Oscars but usually fun films to watch.. If you need help use this receipe. Stop at Fridays before hand, have a couple of beers, order of pot stickers... enjoy
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › NATIONAL TREASURE discussion