Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Nat. Treasure II: Book of Secrets(spoilers)

Azure Kite

Azure Kite

New Member
Great movie IMHO. I think we can say safely that this movie stuck with the unrealistic element of the last one, but hey come on its a movie..... I think Nicholas Cage did a great job. The storyline was pretty cool and gave a fictional answer to several intriguing events in history.(the Golden City, Lincoln's assasination, etc.) I thought Ben pretending to be drunk was the most hilarious thing ever!:lol: What are you humble opinions on the movie, for those of you who have seen it this early?
 
Azure Kite said:
Great movie IMHO. I think we can say safely that this movie stuck with the unrealistic element of the last one, but hey come on its a movie..... I think Nicholas Cage did a great job. The storyline was pretty cool and gave a fictional answer to several intriguing events in history.(the Golden City, Lincoln's assasination, etc.) I thought Ben pretending to be drunk was the most hilarious thing ever!:lol: What are you humble opinions on the movie, for those of you who have seen it this early?
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the movie. I think they are gonna make a 3rd movie and they are going to be searching for whatever is on page 47. :biggrin:

Drew
 
Why the heck was a golden city that belonged to southern native Americans doing all the way up in South Dakota???
 
PokePop said:
Why the heck was a golden city that belonged to southern native Americans doing all the way up in South Dakota???
Click to expand...

That's what I wondered too. All and all though, this movie was BRILLIANT. I hope they do make a third movie to find out what was on Page 47, because I myself want to know so VERY badly.
 
As long as you ignore the unrealistic and somewhat impossible likelyhood of the events that transpired, it's a good movie.
 
bullados said:
You could say this about 99% of all movies.
Click to expand...

Not really.
A really good movie may have a premise that requires you to suspend your disbelief, but after that, it follows the rules of that premise and doesn't pile more and more of them onto your shoulders until you are crushed under their weight.

For example, Spider-man requires you to accept that being bitten by a genetically altered spider give Peter Parker spider-like abilities. OK. I'll accept that premise. But those abilities need to stay within the boundries initially outlined or there had better be a reason they don't. And they pretty much do. Peter doesn't suddenly get the ability to shrink down to the size of a spider because it's convenient for the plot, for example.

Contrast that to some of the Superman movies where Chris Reeves suddenly gets all kinds of abilities just because the director thought they looked cool. Like telekenesis. Or when he split into two different beings just because he was going through a depression.

For NT2, I accept that Nick Cage can con his way into the Queen's office. I'm sure that in the real world, security is much tighter. She is the queen, after all. But OK, I'll buy it.

I'll also buy that a grainy stoplight camera is going to take a clear enough picture, through a windshield, of an aged indian relic for his mother to be able to translate it. Heck, I'll buy that is assistant is able to break into the London police network to pick up that image, even though in the real world, that image is probably sitting on a non-networked flash drive that probably has to be downloaded periodically.
OK, I'll buy that.

I'll buy that there are a dozen big black SUVs sitting in London waiting for the bad guys to hijack them. I've been to London. That's probably every single big black SUV in the entire country. But OK, I'll buy that.

But to buy into the premise that Indians from Florida (it was Florida, right?) carted thousands of tons of gold all the way up to some hole in the Black Hills of South Dakota???? To build a city under a river?????
I'm sorry. I just heard something snapping. Oh yeah. My disbelief.
 
PokePop said:
Not really.
A really good movie may have a premise that requires you to suspend your disbelief, but after that, it follows the rules of that premise and doesn't pile more and more of them onto your shoulders until you are crushed under their weight.

For example, Spider-man requires you to accept that being bitten by a genetically altered spider give Peter Parker spider-like abilities. OK. I'll accept that premise. But those abilities need to stay within the boundries initially outlined or there had better be a reason they don't. And they pretty much do. Peter doesn't suddenly get the ability to shrink down to the size of a spider because it's convenient for the plot, for example.

Contrast that to some of the Superman movies where Chris Reeves suddenly gets all kinds of abilities just because the director thought they looked cool. Like telekenesis. Or when he split into two different beings just because he was going through a depression.

For NT2, I accept that Nick Cage can con his way into the Queen's office. I'm sure that in the real world, security is much tighter. She is the queen, after all. But OK, I'll buy it.

I'll also buy that a grainy stoplight camera is going to take a clear enough picture, through a windshield, of an aged indian relic for his mother to be able to translate it. Heck, I'll buy that is assistant is able to break into the London police network to pick up that image, even though in the real world, that image is probably sitting on a non-networked flash drive that probably has to be downloaded periodically.
OK, I'll buy that.

I'll buy that there are a dozen big black SUVs sitting in London waiting for the bad guys to hijack them. I've been to London. That's probably every single big black SUV in the entire country. But OK, I'll buy that.

But to buy into the premise that Indians from Florida (it was Florida, right?) carted thousands of tons of gold all the way up to some hole in the Black Hills of South Dakota???? To build a city under a river?????
I'm sorry. I just heard something snapping. Oh yeah. My disbelief.
Click to expand...

M-Message received.:eek:
 
haha i agree with every statement thus far.
it was a really good movie. i enjoyed it a lot.
but the gold city being all the way in south dakota doesnt make a lot of sence at all.
what do you think was on page 47?
and personaly i would have just taken the whole secret book with me. and givin it back to the presedent later. but its a good thing he didnt cause if he did it would have gotten ruined in the water at the end.
course i wouldnt have known that when i took the book.
 
I liked it but it felt like it ended too early...it was alot easier to know what was going to happen next this time then last time.
 
It didn't measure up to the first one, for me. Nicholas Cage working out his problems with his ex-girlfriend and his dad working things out with his ex-wife were lame excuses for characterization. Riley's inferiority complex wasn't resolved, unless you count the cute girl at the end wanting his book signed. But the part that really got me was the total lack of a decent villain. Instead of it being Nicholas Cage versus the world (which is really what made the first one worth watching), it was Cage versus one guy who ended up being everybody's hero in the end. Villains that have redeemable qualities make for great storytelling, but not this guy. He was stale and boring.

Ehh.
 
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed that the baddie turned good at the end, but maybe that was just the Disney of the film. I was expecting that Ed Harris' character would be part of the "secret society" that was trying to keep alive the Confederacy as his ancestors before him did. It seemed at the end like it was more like he was trying redeem his family name by finding the lost city.
 
SuperWooper said:
It didn't measure up to the first one, for me. Nicholas Cage working out his problems with his ex-girlfriend and his dad working things out with his ex-wife were lame excuses for characterization. Riley's inferiority complex wasn't resolved, unless you count the cute girl at the end wanting his book signed. But the part that really got me was the total lack of a decent villain. Instead of it being Nicholas Cage versus the world (which is really what made the first one worth watching), it was Cage versus one guy who ended up being everybody's hero in the end. Villains that have redeemable qualities make for great storytelling, but not this guy. He was stale and boring.

Ehh.
Click to expand...

On the Riley thing, its like a lot of movies with goofy characters. You cannot expect them to get a gf out of the blue can you? It simply leaves the oppurtunity for a relationship because a girl actually talks to him, and he doesn't fail in the conversation. Perhaps we will see more of Riley's newfound attractive side.:rolleyes: The villian. Yes he was pretty lame. They did keep the same deal as last time with the stupid and goofy minion. This villian also had a stupid accent. So yeah its pretty sad when you wanna gain fame but lose your life to gain it.
 
^OMG what was with that goofy movie??? Me and my friends were soo lost as to what the thing was doing before the movie.
 
"Back in the day", movies used to always have a cartoon short before the feature film. Most of the Bugs Bunny/Loony Toons cartoons were originally shown as shorts before a Warner Bros. film. Lately most Pixar films have had a short shown before the main film as well.
 
"Back in the day", double features were the norm. That was when there was a B feature, then some kind of short, usually a newsreel or a cartoon, then the A feature. It'd be kewl to see that come back again...
 
taurik said:
"Back in the day", movies used to always have a cartoon short before the feature film. Most of the Bugs Bunny/Loony Toons cartoons were originally shown as shorts before a Warner Bros. film. Lately most Pixar films have had a short shown before the main film as well.
Click to expand...

Pixar films is a division of Disney--thats why the cartoons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top