Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

The poster for Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian sums up what's both good and bad about this sequel: there's a lot going on in it.  Ben Stiller reprises his role as Larry Daley from the 2006 original, only this time he's no longer a security guard, he's the successful entrepreneur behind such useful gadgets as the Glow-in-the-Dark Flashlight.  When he's not running from meeting to sales pitch to infomercial taping, he's thumb-typing frantically on his crackberry, fielding phone calls or holding "working dinners," much to the dismay of his son.

But once Larry learns that the vast majority of exhibits from New York City's American Museum of Natural History are about to be shipped off to the bowels of the Smithsonian, never to spring to life in the wee hours again, he puts aside his new career in order to save his waxy buddies.

This set-up unfortunately takes much too long to play out on screen.  I got the sense that director Shawn Levy simply needed a way to sneak in a few cameos from Ricky Gervais (Larry's old boss) and Robin Williams (Teddy Roosevelt) before moving the action to Washington DC.  Unfortunately, the rest of the film felt like a parade of cameo after cameo as well.  With the exception of Amy Adams' Amelia Earhart (who came off as a little too plucky) and Hank Azaria's Egyptian baddie Kahmunrah (who stole the show with his lispy threats), all of the other substantial talent in the cast was wasted. Sure, Bill Hader was funny as General Custer -- too bad we only got to see him for about ten minutes total.  Even Steve Coogan's Octavius and Owen Wilson's Jedediah, whom Larry was supposedly intent on saving, received relatively little face time. 

Instead, the film focused on Larry running from building to building in a quest to solve an ancient riddle which would end the chaos that had erupted once everything in the Smithsonian complex came to life (thanks to the same magical tablet from the original film).  Most of the time, Amelia tagged along and either threw out forced observations in old-timey speech or gazed longingly at Larry.  I found her "moxie" annoying and her romantic interest in a flesh-and-blood human kinda creepy.  I absolutely adore Amy Adams, but even she couldn't make this character less grating.

As I hinted before, however, children will probably enjoy Battle of the Smithsonian, because despite fairly weak dialogue, a more-complex-than-it-needed-to-be plot and uneven pacing, it is still cool to see museum displays come to life -- especially so many of them at once.  Kudos to the effects team, because everything looked completely real... even Honest Abe busting out of his seated pose at the Lincoln Memorial.

Though I never found myself as captivated as I was while watching the original film, I will give the sequel credit for mixing it up a bit and extending the tablet's life-giving powers to famous photographs (V-J Day in Times Square), paintings (American Gothic) and sculptures (The Thinker)... even though not all of these works can actually be found at the Smithsonian.  (Something tells me there's going to be a lot of disappointed tourists in our nation's capital over the coming months.)

While a few of the action sequences were a blast to watch, overall Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian still fell flat for me, and I can't recommend it to anyone who won't be going to the theater with youngsters in tow.  I can only hope that if there's a third installment in this franchise, it will recapture some of the wonder and sentiment of the original.  Because if there's anything this sequel has taught us, it's that bigger is not necessarily better.

Comments

[Doug]

Thanks for the heads up Erika. I'm taking the family to see it tomorrow. I wouldn't be going if it wasn't for my 8 & 6 year olds, and I think that just seeing them get a kick out of it will make it even more enjoyable for us.

Thanks again.

[Erika Olson]

Doug -

The good news is that the film isn't BAD by any means... it's just the typical case of Hollywood thinking that adding more stars and more effects can outweigh a tight story line. I'm positive that it will be a better experience with you since you'll have your kids with you.

Just PROMISE me that you'll take them to UP next weekend, because that one is SO much better... best family film I've seen in a long, long time.

- Erika

[Andrew]

How is the movie? We're watching it tonight.

[thinkink]

OMG...where can I get a glow in the dark flashlight!
The kids and I are looking forward to seeing this one and Up.

[Georgene]

It's hard to be surprised by Battle of the Smithsonian, since it's a sequel. Ben Stiller didn't really shine like he has in other movies, and there were a lot of things that could have been developed better, like General Custer trying to lead the troops (I won't give any details away). However... I disagree with this review. I LOVED Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart! I got the joke with the overdone old-fashioned language and the pluckiness! Maybe it's because I am and OLDER mom, and I love the old films from the 30s and 40s. In the old movies, characters like Amelia Earhart's are just as annoying - and they really speak that way! Her parody was right on the money. Hank Azaria was absolutely AWSOME... He did a dead-on impersonation of Boris Karloff (the guy who played the original Mummy in the old films)! He had the juiciest acting part in the movie, and he stole the show!

[Irene King]

I, too, am an "older mom," and thinkink's review has me excited to see the movie. While growing up I had a crush on Boris, and this will be fun to watch. After years of not going to movies and then seeing Star Trek a few weeks ago, I'm suddenly in "movie mode"!

[Irene King]

Oops. That should have been Georgene's review!

[Mark Hancock]

I would agree with this review. I have seen it and I was disappointed. I am a person that likes a movie that has a good, strong story line as well as special effects. It does have GREAT special effects but that's about it. Even my 7 year old son, during the movie, wanted to get up and play video games in the lobby! He absolutely LOVED the first one though and has watched it many times on DVD. I would say, wait until it hits DVD then watch it.

[Cindy Bahn]

I loved this movie. My 10 and 8 year olds loved it, too. I would have loved this without the kids, too. I enjoy movies without cursing, blood and guts, and this was simply a magical adventure with great graphics, great humor. . .I just loved it. Have your own mind. . .critics are called critics for a reason!

[Naomi]

I would have to say that I don't agree. I loved the movie all the way around. Part of the lack of "wow" has to attributed to the fact that we're talking about a sequel here. They are rarely as good the first movie. The biggest "wow" factor has already been dispelled in part one.. the fact that the exhibits come to life at night. That doesn't mean that the sequel can't be great too, it's just that your traveling on partially familiar ground versus COMPLETELY familiar ground. There is nothing wrong with that.

Personally, it's one of the best sequels that I've seen. I suppose part of that oppinion is due to the fact that I feared it would be another "National Treasure 2" :( I really wanted that movie to be awesome, and although I like it, it was a big disappointment. The plot was not very well thought out.

I agree that Amelia was annoying.. but I believe that was on purpose, just part of her character.
I really liked the story line, I thought it was a really good plot.

The one problem was the small plot hole toward the end. I know it would have taken a few minutes more of screen time, but I think they should have mentioned something about how he explained all of the broken windows and displaced items.(don't worry, that doesn't spoil anything;)

I would have to say, overall, Night at the Smithsonian is great movie for both kids AND adults. If you're not going into the theater expecting to watch "the motion picture of the year" then I don't think you will be disappointed. Give it a chance!

[Djinn]

Hank Azaria got the only big laughs from the adults and the slapping monkeys got the big laughs from the kids in the theater where we took our four kids to see the movie. Big disappointment, but an okay renter.

[Nancy Luther]

We just saw it Sunday and felt very entertained. Got our money's worth! This is a cheerful fun movie. Maybe not quite as clever as the first one but so much better than the awful blood and guts stuff being offered in other movies. The pre-teens and teens will enjoy seeing the cute Jonas Brothers as cupids. Loved the movie and would see it again. Fast action for all ages.

[dkapa]

Is this movie ok for a 6 yr old and a 4 1/2 year old?

[Lisa]

Saw it yesterday with my hubby and two of our four children plus one of their friends. My husband usually falls asleep during movies, he stayed engaged for the entire film. The girls (13) liked it but I think my 11 year old son like it more. I enjoyed the movie and seeing the characters again. Clever how they added all the different exhibits. No not as good as the original which (in my humble opinion) was the first original plot in a family movie in a long time. I was not disappointed.

[Locke Peterseim]

I just got back from it with my four-year-old nephew and he was RIVETED by it. I'm trying to think of potentially "scary" bits for young kids -- he was a bit apprehensive of the giant octopus, but warmed up to it (the film eventually makes it out to be friendly)... didn't seem bothered by the hawk-headed Egyptian legions of the dead at all.

So I'd say it's fine for a four-year old--anyone agree or disagree?

[Michelle]

My family went and watched the film this past weekend. I have a 9 & 11 year old boys (who didn't get to watch the first movie yet). We all LOVED it! My kids thought it was awesome and laughed the majority of the way through. I would highly recommend this movie to the old and young.

[Diner Girl]

I have heard such mixed reviews about this movie that I'm just going to have to see it myself to see how I feel. I tend to like movies that a lot of people don't like. But since people seem to not be that thrilled about it, i'll probably just wait until it comes out on DVD. Thanks for the review!

[Locke Peterseim]

Well, Diner Girl and everyone, I will say this: I don't care much for Ben Stiller's "family movies." (I LOVE his much more adult, edgy satirical films.) I can hardly remember much of anything about the first Museum -- I remember being kind of annoyed by how hard and frantically it worked to "hyper-entertain" but I also recall really liking Wilson and Coogan's humor in it.

But I went with my niece and nephew to Museum 2 last night and frankly, I had a really fun time. (Well, most of the way -- like so many kids' comedies, I felt it dragged towards the end. It's like a sugar rush, they cram the screen full of so much, so fast that eventually it just wears you out and becomes repetitive.)

Sure there was hit and miss with the jokes, but the idea behind these kinds of summer family flicks is to just keep 'em coming--there are so many funny bits of all shapes and sizes (and styles and tastes) thrown at you that if you don't laugh at one, you'll laugh a minute later at something else.

I loved Azaria, of course, and I actually kinda liked Adam's Kate Hepburn riff on Amelia Earhart. Sure, as in all things in life, I could have used more Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan, and less Robin Williams. (And Bill Hader, who I normally think is great, just seemed to be trying too hard as Custer to "out riff" Wilson and Coogan.)

As critics we ALWAYS hear "why can't you just sit back, relax, and enjoy a film for what it is: nice, fun, entertainment." And yes, it is a treat sometimes to not have to worry about reviewing a film or think about what is or is not working in it. If I had been reviewing Museum 2, I'm sure I'd have had a lot more to say about the overall jerky, uneven, unfocused nature of the plot and pace.

But here's the thing: I had a fun time watching Museum 2 last night, just watching it as a regular summer movie goer. But, like Museum 1, I can guess what will happen: I'll have fond memories of the funny bits and this fall I may rent it and sit down to watch it again, with or without my nephew. And I'll bet you anything, I'll get pretty bored and frustrated with it the second time -- there will still be the funny bits, but they'll feel more strung out and the spaces between them will feel more draggy and flat.

See, that's what we're talking about as critics when we "rip apart" a fun, pointless, empty entertainment: it may keep you chuckling for a hour or so, but it's not a good enough film to hold up to repeated viewings down the road. THAT'S the mark of a truly great film -- one that gets BETTER each time you watch it--sometimes even if you weren't sure you liked it much the first time. Some of my absolute favorite films--especially comedies--the ones I watch again and again, are ones that I was a bit lukewarm or mixed about in the theater the first time and that grew on me over time.

Maybe that could happen with Museum 2, but I kinda doubt it -- this was a perfect giggle fit sugar rush for a lazy summer evening, but that's about it for me.

Still, parents, if you have to go to a kids' film in the theaters, this isn't the worst way to while away a couple hours.

[Bob J]

ben stiller cannot act

[Liz]

I myself can not wait to see this movie. I just hope that they didn't show all the good parts of the movie in the previews!

[Livia]

I saw the movie Night at the Museum: Battle of Smithsonian at it was great! Love this movie.