Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-23-2004, 12:17 PM
I thought this movie was surprising good. First, it does have its major flaws, but I really didn't expect historic or plot perfection from this movie. The fact that the main character(Nicolas Cage) could figure out all of the clues, and rival Sean Bean could figure them out as well(and without any of the clues that Nicolas had) is a pretty long stretch. I found some of the dialog a little cheesy, but at other times quite humorous.
While it's not as good as "Raider of the Lost Ark" I did think it was one of the closest attempts since then with the exception of maybe the two "Mummy" movies...but they were a whole different ball game themselves. Diane Kruger didn't look as good in this as she did in "Troy" but her acting was slightly better even though she's still not that great at it. There's a model for you. I felt it was worth my money and enjoyed the exploration of it all!
The movie had great action sequences, very good effects though I thought the theaters sound system was a little weak in the bass, and surround levels. One great thing about these kind of movies, is there is nothing like watching them on a 65ft wide screen that has been properly masked(it looked to be about 2.40.1 on this particular screen) I really liked the music, but the sound system in this theater made some of the horn parts in the movie pretty strident, but overall I love the way the music complimented the screen actions.
I found a few bloopers in the plot, one being the amount or signers on the DOI. They site 55. If my history is correct, there were 56. If I was going to build something to house a vast treasure, it wouldn't be falling apart after 200 years, after all, there are some homes and lighthouses that are 200 years old, and still in pretty good condition. Also my buddy mentioned to me that Charles Carroll was NOT a freemason
One great thing that I loved about this movie, no one dies from a single gunshot, and there is no cussing that I could remember. Amazing!!!!
While it's not as good as "Raider of the Lost Ark" I did think it was one of the closest attempts since then with the exception of maybe the two "Mummy" movies...but they were a whole different ball game themselves. Diane Kruger didn't look as good in this as she did in "Troy" but her acting was slightly better even though she's still not that great at it. There's a model for you. I felt it was worth my money and enjoyed the exploration of it all!
The movie had great action sequences, very good effects though I thought the theaters sound system was a little weak in the bass, and surround levels. One great thing about these kind of movies, is there is nothing like watching them on a 65ft wide screen that has been properly masked(it looked to be about 2.40.1 on this particular screen) I really liked the music, but the sound system in this theater made some of the horn parts in the movie pretty strident, but overall I love the way the music complimented the screen actions.
I found a few bloopers in the plot, one being the amount or signers on the DOI. They site 55. If my history is correct, there were 56. If I was going to build something to house a vast treasure, it wouldn't be falling apart after 200 years, after all, there are some homes and lighthouses that are 200 years old, and still in pretty good condition. Also my buddy mentioned to me that Charles Carroll was NOT a freemason
One great thing that I loved about this movie, no one dies from a single gunshot, and there is no cussing that I could remember. Amazing!!!!