Fred: I see “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” scored 35 percent at Rotten Tomatoes.

Erik: Probably for the same reasons the first one scored 41 percent. But so what? I really liked it. I had a good time.

Fred: Really?

Erik: Yeah! You didn’t?

Fred: Well, let’s be honest, these “National Treasure” films aren’t exactly “Indiana Jones.”

Erik: So? They have a certain special quality of their own. The excitement of a treasure hunt. Nicholas Cage’s charm. A light and breezy style…

Fred: Okay. I’ll give you that. It’s definitely light and breezy; almost air-headed.

Erik: Oh, come on! It’s not air-headed.

Fred: Just hear me out. If I set aside the entertainment value and put on my Really Serious Critic hat…
Erik: You have a hat?

Fred: Yeah. You didn’t get one?

Erik: No…

Fred: I guess you’ll just have to learn to live without. As I was saying, if I put on my Really Serious Critic hat, I have to point out that the film is rather formulaic and unambitious. “Book of Secrets” is really just more of the same. And what about Ed Harris? Great actor, of course. Along with Helen Mirren in the role of Ben Gates’ mom, I was surprised to see him in the film. But as the film’s villain, he came across as unfocused, with murky motives that, in the end, didn’t seem to justify the ruthlessness of his pursuit of treasure.

Erik: Hang on there. I’ll give you Harris’ villain. He definitely was more of an excuse to generate conflict and push Gates into following the clues to the big treasure. Sean Bean proved more effective in the first movie since his character had streamlined motivations and a more established relationship with Gates. But I think that’s a fairly minor issue, given that Harris is a wonderful actor and he does generate the right kind of understated menace to make his character an effective foil. Same with Mirren. You could argue her talents are underutilized, but I’d say she takes her characters, runs with them and has fun. She makes what could have been a cardboard character in a lesser actor’s hands something richer.

Fred: Maybe. But you can’t tell me the plot is rich and complex, or even smart and credible. That part where Ben Gates “kidnaps” the president so he can discover the hiding place of the presidential “book of secrets” – secrets that are so secret presidents can only divulge them to their successors – is, be honest now, totally unbelievable.

Erik: So you’re telling me that you agree with those critics who think this is just a dumb, unrealistic exercise in ripping off "Indiana Jones?"

Fred: Well…

Erik: Granted, the film isn’t realistic when you really think about it. It’s got issues. But let’s think about what the film does get right.

Fred: Lay it on me.

Erik: Let’s start with the difference between “National Treasure” and “Indiana Jones.” “Indiana Jones” is a violent character engaged in violent adventures; gory, even, whether it’s ripping hearts out of chests or watching skin melting off bones. Ben Gates, in contrast, doesn’t use guns, doesn’t throw punches, but relies entirely on his wits. He’s a more cerebral kind of character. I think it’s refreshing, even inspiring, to have a non-violent character in a relatively non-violent kind of adventure. The stakes aren’t high, of course. There’s no holy grail or ark to keep out of the hands of Nazis, or child slaves and villages on the brink of destruction. Although this time around the villain may have motives that could have disastrous political consequences, for the most part the “National Treasure” films are about something else.

Fred: Don’t tell me…history.

Erik: I think that hat of yours is on too tight.

Fred: Just go on. History. You were going to say something about how the film embodies a love of history?

Erik: Yes! Sure, the conspiracy theory aspect of the stories not only flirts with silliness, but kisses it full on the lips, with tongue, but Ben Gates loves history, the film loves history, and in all that even the conspiracy theories are subject to a scientific need for proof. In other words, it’s not a conspiracy theory when you have evidence the theory is correct. That’s what I love about this film. It plays off our love of conspiracies and hidden histories, but also celebrates the human curiosity that drives us to understand the past. And it does so without resorting to supernatural, fantasy elements. The story may be far-fetched, but the metaphysics underlying the story are entirely realistic.



Fred: You might have something there. I guess along those lines we can appreciate another way in which the film differs from the Indiana Jones film, namely, how the film’s universes are actually enriched by Gates’ finds.

Erik: Exactly! Take the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” The ark is stored in a huge warehouse as an anonymous crate among many. The grail in “The Last Crusade,” along with the temple in which it’s housed, gets buried in rubble. Neither gets studied. They are, I guess, too dangerous to handle and thus should be out of reach of human understanding. Seems like a cop-out to me.

Fred: When you put it that way…

Erik: You know, I’m not saying that “Book of Secrets” is “Casablanca.” I’m not saying it’s anything other than escapist fun. But on those terms it succeeds very well. The cast has great chemistry. The comedy is charming. “Book of Secrets” was fun, pure and simple.

Fred: So you’re saying I can have my Really Serious Critic hat and eat it, too?

Erik: Precisely.