Distracting and better than the sequel but still not much cop

Rating: Null/10 (1 June 2008)

Adventurer and archaeologist Ben Gates is following his lifelong quest for a legendary treasure with his team and searching for a lost ship which contains the treasure. No treasure is found but they do locate a clue that suggests a map to the treasure's location is somehow hidden on the back on the Declaration of Independence. Ben gives it up there and then but his colleague, Ian Howe, decides to go after the Declaration himself  even if it means stealing it. Left for dead with geek Riley, Ben decides to stop Howe, but with the authorities sceptical to say the least, the only way he can do it is get to the map and treasure before Howe can.
After hating the sequel, it would be a fair question to ask as to why I bothered watching the first one. Well my reasoning was that I didn't believe that the first film could have been that bad if so many people went to see it. The first film clearly has a lot in common with the second film and in a way I disliked it in the same sort of way. Writing this now I realise one thing  if I review this against the sequel I will either end up moaning about it due to the things it has in common or praising it because "at least it is still better than the sequel", so instead I will just try and review it without a connection to the bad experience I had.
Watching it on its own terms it is hard to deny that the plot is a bit daft and I did struggle to get into it at times. Fortunately it minimises the daftness of the clues and, more importantly, the number of them that have to be followed and as a result it didn't tire me out that much. Of course what the silliness does mean is that the film cannot create a sense of tension, urgency or danger. This does keep it in kiddie territory although (sorry to do this) it is much less frequent that all the terrible "wacky" rubbish in the sequel. On the whole though, the film did just about enough to keep my interest and make me suspend my disbelief but not enough to really excite or engage me. It is hard to see it as anything other than a poor man's Indiana Jones.
The cast are roundly so-so, a reflection of the material perhaps but here we are. Cage is all a bit too smug and knowing to draw the audience into the story and I do think that he is a part of the failing in this regard. Kruger is so-so and I suppose at least Bartha is quite fun in his character. Bean is a poor villain with a division one footballer's haircut. Voight, Keitel and Plummer are all pretty much slumming it in small roles and offer nothing other than their faces to the film.
Even without comparing it to the sequel, National Treasure is only a so-so film. The lack of urgency and danger leaves the silliness of the film rather exposed. It does just about manage to minimise the wackiness and stupidity that the sequel suffered heavily from and it does distract but it is certainly no better than that.