National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures | Release Date: December 21, 2007
5.9
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 269 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
116
Mixed:
105
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
4
ReviewCriticDec 29, 2011
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.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
6
AnnB.Jan 5, 2008
Pretty silly action/adventure stuff, with a lame story line. Still, it was an entertaining two hours if you left your brain at home.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
5
KevinD.Jan 1, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
IanRJan 2, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
THWJan 2, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KirkL.Jan 8, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GrahamS.May 7, 2008
Fun, but not a scratch on the first one.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RamzeezeB.Jan 1, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AlisaH.Jan 29, 2008
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BenB.Jan 3, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChadS.Jan 3, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CraigBMay 23, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnH.Aug 1, 2009
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. 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MattO.Dec 23, 2007
First one was better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobertI.Dec 25, 2007
Oh so lame, with irony that splatters the walls like so much mud. Ugh, and double ugh.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
VictorDec 25, 2007
Much ado about nothing. Slow tedious and mundane. The first movie was great but this was the pits.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BrandonT.Jun 27, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JackJ.Dec 21, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JudyT.Dec 21, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
IanGussDec 21, 2007
Great special effects but the story made little sense and the supporting Riley Poole is extremely annoying and unfunny!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JoeDec 24, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
danh.Dec 28, 2007
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?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GoldenEye16Aug 23, 2010
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...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CRLJul 30, 2011
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 itIt'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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
heyitsmegrif4Jan 27, 2012
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 itThe 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%.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
imthenoobSep 5, 2021
Book of Secrets fixes a few issues that the first film while also creating a few of their own. I think the pacing is far better, the humor works, and the cast does a fine job. That being said, The entire final act is a bore that lasts for 30+Book of Secrets fixes a few issues that the first film while also creating a few of their own. I think the pacing is far better, the humor works, and the cast does a fine job. That being said, The entire final act is a bore that lasts for 30+ minutes when it could have been 20 at best. It just instantly kills all excitement that the movie while playing out in a predictable fashion.

And as much as I like Ed Harris, His villain is so bland and his character's motive made no sense. At least Sean Bean's villain (from the first movie) made sense with his story arc, Harris's villain was all over the place and had no consistency. It was a low point of the movie IMO.

All in all, It's tolerable but not as fun as the first movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
beingryanjudeJun 6, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
csw12Sep 2, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Trev29Sep 2, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
OfficialNov 15, 2013
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,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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
worleyjamersMay 26, 2013
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, II 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BradySmithDec 14, 2014
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 goodDecently 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JPKJan 15, 2020
Not Very Interesting
This sequel definitely pales in comparison to it's predecessor.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
CoreGamer1408Apr 11, 2023
Fun, but retread the beats of the first movie and not as good. Cage is the only really draw in this movie for sure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
RobwinzDec 11, 2020
National Treasure: Book Of Secrets is a terrible sequel to the first movie. The movie's got to have one of the most boring story's going with some weak acting, cheesy dialogue, bad chemistry, terrible pacing, some decent action sequences, badNational Treasure: Book Of Secrets is a terrible sequel to the first movie. The movie's got to have one of the most boring story's going with some weak acting, cheesy dialogue, bad chemistry, terrible pacing, some decent action sequences, bad character development, too many plot holes and too many cringey moments.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Tbrown5Oct 23, 2020
This movie is good, The plot starts of strong but it loses track at the end, I love the first and the idea of the city of gold is ok, but the movie doesn’t Kabul the treasure hunt like the first, I would recommend this movie after watchingThis movie is good, The plot starts of strong but it loses track at the end, I love the first and the idea of the city of gold is ok, but the movie doesn’t Kabul the treasure hunt like the first, I would recommend this movie after watching the first, the first movie 8/10 but this movie needed a better plot 6/10, still a good movie and would recommend this movie if you like the first… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

48 Critic Reviews

5.9 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL