National Treasure: Book of Secrets

a question for all those who have seen both movies...does somebody have to see the first one for the second one to make sense??? me and the girlfriend are trying to go see a movie and i cant find out if i need to see the first one before the second one
-chris

No. And in fact if you see the first one it might ruin the second one because it's the same stuff. Although the first one moved a lot quicker.

thanks...nice first post and welcome to the forums!!
-chris

I recommend "Charlie Wilson's War".

I thought both of them were pretty good. No, you don't need to see the first one to understand the second, but the first one is pretty good too.

Nicholas Cage makes me want to throw up...

I saw the first one and thought it was utter crap ( as do most critics, 41% Rotten ), so I suppose the second one can't be much worse ( ...though it did score even lower at 35% Rotten ).

coach_z said:

thanks...nice first post and welcome to the forums!!
-chris

Click to expand...

It was weird to see "welcome to the forums" because I've actually been on here for about a month, guess I've just never replied to a post... crazy

D3v1L80Y said:

I saw the first one and thought it was utter crap ( as do most critics, 41% Rotten ), so I suppose the second one can't be much worse ( ...though it did score even lower at 35% Rotten ).

Click to expand...

Ultimately all that matters is if one is entertained. If people went by critics, they'd never go see any movie out there. Yet, the majority of films made today that make the most money are usually hit hardest by critics.

I for one, prefer to be the critic for myself.

hey i actually enjoyed it greatly....except for the fact that i had to sit in the third row and could barely see the entire screen because i was so freakin close to it
-chrsi

Mattlike said:

Ultimately all that matters is if one is entertained. If people went by critics, they'd never go see any movie out there. Yet, the majority of films made today that make the most money are usually hit hardest by critics.

I for one, prefer to be the critic for myself.

Click to expand...

well said, i hate "professional" critics

Mattlike said:

Ultimately all that matters is if one is entertained. If people went by critics, they'd never go see any movie out there. Yet, the majority of films made today that make the most money are usually hit hardest by critics.

I for one, prefer to be the critic for myself.

Click to expand...

I agree, I alone decide whether or not I like a movie. And yet, a bad movie can be entertaining... but still be a bad movie. Critics don't slam movies because they make money, Titanic was applauded by critics and made tons of cash, but I still found it to be a drawn out, tiresome movie.
People give movies poor reviews because they're bad movies, not because they make money

Also, I give credence to Rotten Tomatoes over any other review site because they calculate their overall score based not only on the reviews of professional movie critics, but also the reviews of everyday people (which makes up the majority of the score). They have an extremely large number of people reviewing the films. Their scores are averaged based on 100's of reviews (both professionals and the public), instead of 4 or 5 like other sites.

D3v1L80Y said:

Also, I give credence to Rotten Tomatoes over any other review site because they calculate their overall score based not only on the reviews of professional movie critics, but also the reviews of everyday people (which makes up the majority of the score). They have an extremely large number of people reviewing the films. Their scores are averaged based on 100's of reviews (both professionals and the public), instead of 4 or 5 like other sites.

Click to expand...

Here.. Here!

D3v you have style!