Sequelitis provides another glimpse into the depths of the review bucket, in which I find that my voice still sounds basically the same, at least to me. Three years and more gone, I saw National Treasure and was a little embarrassed to have enjoyed it. I mean, I still am. The plot and most of the characters were paper-thin, the acting was fine but not enough to inspire much loyalty, and Disneyfication was clearly present. Despite all that, it also had an undefinable element of fun to it that pretty much resolved all the other issues. And I should give Disney the credit for that too, despite that it hasn’t really happened as often as it used to in their heyday. Anyway, who doesn’t want to watch an Indiana-Jones-style treasure hunt through deadlily implausible traps? No one, that’s who!
Therefore, it was pretty easy to talk myself into willingness to watch National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Goofy traps and treasure: check, not allergic to Nicolas Cage: check, expectation of fun: check. And I got more or less what I expected. A plot that was perhaps two or three sheets of paper in thickness, in which Benjamin Franklin Cage 1) receives word that his great-great-grandfather may have been involved in the assassination of President Lincoln and 2) must therefore find the lost city of CÃbola to clear the family name. And the only way to accomplish that, of course, is to find the Presidential Book of Secrets, in which the current President leaves notes and drawings and possibly poetry for later Presidents to read and learn from, all the way back to George Washington. If none of that makes sense to you, well, that’s not really the point. I’ve already guaranteed goofy traps, and the goofy treasure is pretty well covered just by virtue of CÃbola being the object.
I was disappointed by my perception that, come the end of the movie, Grandpappy Cage’s innocence had not been so much established as declared by fiat. Paper-thin plotting is fine, but you can’t just toss out the paper without finishing it, you know? Other than that, I got exactly what I expected, and what I expected was maybe not good, but it was good enough.
I know it’s early yet, but this year is treating me excellently for books. I suppose the most important factor is the stack of recommendations I sift through these days, which in many ways has been a factor in the improvements my reading list has seen over the past year and more. But both of today’s book and
Then, earlier this week I saw
This review is somewhere between days and weeks late; I just haven’t simultaneously felt like writing anything and had time to. I’m not entirely clear on whether that confluence of events has in fact occurred now, but I pretty much have to get over the hump, right? The sad part is, I absolutely adored 
Far back in the mists of Delirium’s history (er, the site, not the girl), I read
One sign of an extremely good video game is that it would be almost easier to describe it as a movie and leave out the game elements entirely. Well, okay, that may not be true. But if the reason you want to leave out the game elements is that they were so seamless and non-intrusive that you only very occasionally even felt like you were playing something instead of watching it and influencing the outcome, that would be good. It would also be a good sign if your father, no stranger to games even if he’s not the gamer type, were to ask you after watching the last 15 or 20 minutes of the game to clarify that it was in fact a game, and not a movie.