Here's a breakdown of why:
National Treasure (2004):
* Fresh premise: The first film introduced the unique concept of treasure hunting based on historical mysteries and conspiracies.
* Stronger story: It has a more focused plot, with a clear goal and a satisfying resolution.
* More engaging action: The action sequences were more thrilling and grounded in reality, avoiding excessive CGI.
* Stronger supporting cast: The dynamic between Ben Gates and Riley Poole felt more genuine and entertaining.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007):
* Overly convoluted plot: The story was more complex and required a lot of exposition, which could feel overwhelming at times.
* Less engaging action: The action sequences felt more generic and relied heavily on CGI.
* Less compelling villains: The antagonist in the sequel felt less developed and less threatening than the original.
* Repetitive formula: The second film felt like a rehash of the first, with the same basic plot structure and character dynamics.
Ultimately, the choice between the two is a matter of personal preference. If you prefer a more straightforward story with compelling action and a focus on historical intrigue, National Treasure (2004) might be your pick. If you enjoy the fast-paced action and over-the-top plot of the sequel, Book of Secrets might be more your style.
Both films are enjoyable and entertaining, but the original National Treasure is often considered the stronger and more well-crafted film.