Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
by John NolteIf the first “Night at the Museum” was weighed down with a cookie-cutter plot involving the stale idea of a single dad desperate to redeem himself in his son’s eyes, “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” has no weight whatsoever thanks to a flat story loaded with monstrous plot holes and a cast of dull, one-dimensional characters.
There’s also only one laugh — one — and all the special effects in the world simply can’t make up for a single chuckle over 105 very long minutes. The only good news is that Ben Stiller appeared to be even more bored than I was.
If you remember, Larry Daley (Stiller) was once a night guard at the Museum of Natural History in New York City where after the sun went down, thanks to ancient artifact, the exhibits all came to life. Mayhem ensued, adventure was had and lifelong friendships were formed.
A few years have passed (between films and for our characters) and today Larry has managed to tinker his way into fortune and some fame as a highly successful entrepreneur hawking inventions, like his glow-in-the-dark flashlight (so you can find it when the power goes out, duh), on infomercials.
As is always the case in these films, success has made Larry unhappy and distracted, too worried about business meetings and deal-making to be the good father and friend he once was. For months now he’s neglected his museum friends and when he does show up for a long overdue visit he finds most of them boxed up for permanent storage, bound for the basement of the Smithsonian in Washington DC.
Of course Larry will have to save them and in the process the entire Smithsonian comes alive, including paintings, sculptures, a black and white Al Capone, a preening General Custer (Bill Hader), an obnoxious, hyper-feminist Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) and even the giant President Lincoln normally found seated in his DC memorial. Returning for a second round is Owen Wilson’s miniature cowboy, who’s given much more to do than the barely returning Robin Williams as Teddy Roosevelt, Attila the Hun and Sacajawea.
Hank Azaria is our flamboyant baddie Kahmunrah, a lisping Pharaoh desperate to get his hands on the artifact that brought him and everything else to life. The plan is to resurrect his 2000 year old army and take over the world … or some such thing.
Other than the special effects, which are convincing, it’s obvious no one cared about anything else like believable relationships or a plot that made a lick of sense. The plot holes that keep Larry alive and running around all on his own are insulting. This isn’t a movie aimed at kids, this is a movie aimed at dumb kids … kids in need of helmets.
The dialogue’s terrible, full of those halting, irreverent asides that increasingly pass for wit these days, and the action scenes lack both excitement and tension. People run, people fight, people talk and talk and talk. Every character arc feels forced, the relationships even more so. When the great Ricky Gervais can’t brighten up his bookended moments, what hope is there for anything else?
Most lacking is any sense of magic or joy. When a movie advertises the Smithsonian coming to life, no matter how lackluster the rest might be, you expect at least a couple of “wow” moments, but there’s not a single one.
If there’s anything to recommend it’s a rare and appreciated sense of reverence director Shawn Levy shows for American history in this, a mainstream Hollywood film produced for young, impressionable minds. Even General Custer is given an un-PC opportunity to redeem himself and it’s nice to hear Teddy Roosevelt call America “a great country” and Amelia Earhart credit “American ingenuity” for the invention of flight. It’s just a sad fact these days that characters aren’t allowed to talk like this.
Most interesting is a moment in front of the White House when a historical character says something like, “I’ve heard a great man leads this union.” You have to wonder if that line would’ve been allowed when Bush was president or had McCain won… Damn, I’m cynical.
Between this and the equally uninspired “Terminator Salvation,” if you must leave the house for a movie this holiday weekend, Blockbuster is your best gamble.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
39 Comments
Most interesting is a moment in front of the White House when a historical character says something like, “I’ve heard a great man leads this union.”
Really? Really?
I was hoping for an adventure of good note with a bit of humor. Alas, sadly. This turd ramped up an action scene than screeches to a dead stop with worthless asides every five minutes. The villain promised an army and only coughs up less than twenty henchmen.. and all those worthless asides, did I mention that?
But seriously, Mr. Nolte. How can you be wowed any longer since Jurassic Park? The last big wow came out in '99 with 'The Matrix'. Computer Generated special effects has truly freed the imaginations of all of hollyweird and has truly jaded the crowd ever since. 'Iron Man' wowed the audiences because of the hero and his scripted words, Not the iron suit he flew around in. That was a bonus but it would've been useless without the great script. 'The Dark Knight' again with a great script with a great topping of barely visible CG drew in the crowd. Praising lovingly those two, I can't but have a say about the other recently successful show called 'Star Trek' that draws in the crowd, but somehow I imagine that that tired "in the now" type of show will be duly forgotten except by the nerds who loved it. Timeless it aint..
'Night~' wanted to draw in the horde and pull in as much as possible before fatigue quickly kills its' fix in the next few weeks. I believe they may of succeeded there. There where many jokes within, but the sizable audience with me didn't agree. The biggest laugh had to be the furry tyrannosaurus Octavius faced. During the movie, I kept wondering though… With that much mayhem, with shattered windows in a museum in the Capital. You'd think a gaggle of cops, secret service (since it's happening so damn close to the White House!), FBI and other acronyms would've shown up. A plane popping up out of nowhere would've been shot down and 'buzzing' Manhattan could've created another panic and F-15s' tossing missiles about don't you think?
Sad indeed.
Not talking about being wowed by the efx — talking about being wowed by that moment when the concept hits the bullseye and i sit there awed by this museum coming to life…
Like Ratatouille — that early scene in the kitchen where our little rodent hero is outrunning constant danger, or the scene under the streets of Chicago/Gotham when the Joker attacks the convoy in "Dark Knight"…
Nothing new in either as far as technology — just great direction — choreography — IDEAS!
Ah, that's a shame. While the first movie wasn't catch-your-breath terrific, it was charming and my youngest children really enjoyed it (especially the TRex bones playing fetch like a dog and the teeny display people). I can't imagine why they felt compelled to rehash the plot of the first (Schelp Dad becomes Hero Dad) when they could have started fresh and created a whole new story. The Smithsonian, for crying out loud! How can you mess that up?
Sounds more like this movie was made by committee than by creativity.
Movies used to tell great stories: Morality tales. Fantasies to get lost in. Heroic biographies… But no more. They just seem stale and indifferent. Where are the storytellers like William Wyler, or Spielberg before he became a tycoon?
Sadly, the language has become Newspeak and creativity is acclaimed without merit.
Too bad about this review. I thought the movie was leagues better than the first, and there were easily two to three dozen good laughs. I'm starting to notice a trend in these reviews: John hates everything.
A story about a divorced dad. I have a more interesting plot. Wife divorces guy because he lost his job like 80% of the other 6 million guys. Also, though he was legally innocent, he loses his children, 18 years of income, home, cars, and gets an Order of Protection against him (because…well… he was upset).
Later he ends up on a deadbeat dad list for missing a few support payments, while the wife remarries a rich banker dude recently flush with government bail out money. But all is not too bad as his kids now call the new guy "dad."
I suppose we can get dinosaurs and Power Ranger in the story. El Fin.
I enjoyed seeing the first one with the kids, but when I heard Custer say "Mission Accomplished" in the trailer, I knew this film was just too cutting edge for me.
Dang! The first movie was enjoyable – something I could bring my niece and nephews too. But come ON – before I fork out that much money, it had better be something worth seeing. And this so clearly isn't it.
Personally, my own little take is that Hollywood is so in love with nihilism that it's not so much that they won't give a damn but that they can't. You know, in the old Depression, Hollywood had box office records because of people wanting to escape the dreariness of the outside world. The movies gave them hope, enjoyment, joy, etc. Sheesh! Hollywood proves that old credo wrong – because it's forgotten its past, it can't relive it.
"(Movies) just seem stale and indifferent.
Yup, you said it. Hollywood is in love with nihilism. And the inevitable spawn is indifference. Those old films had that Sally Fields quality that's missing today – i.e., the film makers back then liked us, they really liked us! Today's film makers make me want to back off so that I don't catch their spit in my eye. Sheesh! And for that, they want me to fork over $9.50? Hoo boy! Here comes Netflix and a whole bunch of black and whites.
Amen.
Then you're obviously not familiar with Nolte's body of work.
Four months…he's been here four months, and these clowns are declaring him a great man? Doesn't there need to be actual achievements before someone can assume the mantle of greatness, or is just getting elected president enough these days? I guess the legacy of Andrew Johnson can sleep easier at night.
I just returned from this movie. I figured any movie starring the Smithsonian – especially the potential of effects that would bring the Smithsonian to life as done in the first movie – would be appealing and hold my daughter's attention.
Do not waste your money.
Sadly, Mr. Nolte is right on target with his review. The entire plot fell flat. The writing was generic, neither clever nor witty.
I am, but he has given terrible reviews for two pretty decent movies in less than half a week. I like Mr. Nolte, and I respect the hell out of what he has done with this site, but his reviews seem to expect everything to be No Country for Old Men.
A coworker of mine was involved in a nasty divorce and at the end he was allowed to keep $20 of his weekly paycheck. I'm not totally clear on the specifics, it was an error on the courts part that they didn't find or bother to look for until well after the case was over.
Eventually it was corrected, but for 6 months he went on $20 per week and whatever he could make under the table. It might make for a good hankie movie, if not we could always have a couple of guys in corny giant robot costumes slugging it out to techno music.
John, your first two paragraphs there are an absolute masterpiece of critical invective. I laughed about a half a beer through my nose. There were several other good laughs there too. Bravo. *golf clap*
Yeah, that one quote was code for Bush bashing inside humor. I guess I am not sophisticated enough to appreciate that line of reasoning.
[...] Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian by John Nolte [...]
My guess.
If it was an American historical character who said something like, “I’ve heard a great man leads this union.”.
Than the scriptwriter meant Obama.
If it was an foreign historical character who said something like, “I’ve heard a great man leads this union.”.
Than the scriptwriter meant US presidents in general and it was the sort of pap that seems to pass for patriotism in the movies these days.
I only watched 1 trailer, but judging from that, I can continue to be mildly surprised that of all the ruthless dictators that have been poking around Europe for the last 2 centuries, Hollywood continues to treat as a joke the one guy that was a genuinely brilliant general.
Napoleon.
Since they started filming in 2007, I can only assume they were talking about Bush.
"Most interesting is a moment in front of the White House when a historical character says something like, “I’ve heard a great man leads this union.” You have to wonder if that line would’ve been allowed when Bush was president or had McCain won… Damn, I’m cynical."
Not cynical – just intelligent. I was wondering how Hollywood was going to start propagandizing us about the most inept president we've ever had. Guess it started with "Night in the Museum, Too". Thought about going. Teaches me not to go to a movie until I read your review.
Good point. That was a little too knee-jerk Obama bashing even for me.
If nothing else, we need to temper our criticisms with the facts; otherwise we're no different than the Bush haters of the past eight years.
By the way, which "historical figure" said the line? It could have been Hitler or Genghis Khan.
Context means a lot.
That reminds me of when I saw the first installment of this film. Of course, we know the best part of seeing the first Night at the Museum was that I saw it with a couple of pitchers of beer. I don't understand why they don't have more Movie Taverns or Alamo Drafthouses — they make craptacular films like this tolerable.
Can you imagine the liberals' reaction to a guy who's the spittin' image of Hitler saying those words ("I hear a great man rules this union")? That would be hilarious. Too bad the producer of this movie probably didn't have the balls to attempt that. I'd probably pay to see the movie just for that scene. Mr. Nolte would have caught that, though, and since the scene elicited such an understandably cynical response, I'm planning to miss this one.
Maybe "V" will make up for all the cowardice in Hollywood. 'Til then, thank you, Mr. Nolte.
I turned off the first NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM when I rented the DVD because it was so boring. NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2 doesn't sound worthy enough to even become a coaster. Another good weekend to stay home and read a book.
No way. Never.
The movie sucked, period. I enjoyed Amy Adams, and some new characters, The Jonus Brothers where cherub's, loved that. But Ben Stiller gets so annoying anymore. The worse part was how Gen Custer was made to be a coward, bumbing idiot. Gen Custer isnt my favorite American, but he was a great General that lead many great battles, but his worse mistake was Little Big Horn. The movie had so many plot holes, and things that left me wondering…..
If they starting filming in 2007, they must have assumed John Edwards would win. Well, maybe in some alternate universe. In any case, assume they were being subversive and meant Bush.
Too bad the movie is terrible. Not that the first was any great shakes. But at least Mickey Rooney was in it.
Yeah, I agree… No plot, they were struggling to fill more than an hour… Kids like it, but hey, their kids… I was bored out of my wits…
Aside from the typical Hollywood loser dad, because aren't we all, I thought the first one was fun – as did my children. I have no doubt that the primary purpose for this film is just to animate a bunch of museum exhibits. The rest, however thin, is just a contextual excuse for the CGi guys to have fun. That said,the whole premise taps into an interesting fantasy and when I take my kids to see it I am certain they will enjoy it – without helmets.
I didn't think the movie was that bad. I liked it despite its plot holes. It made me, my family and most of the audience laugh, and some even clapped at the end of it. If you view it as just light, fun entertainment, and don't take it too seriously, it's fine.
As a writer, I noticed several plot holes, but I tried to ignore them. As a historian…well, let's not go there.
I took my daughter to the movie along with three of her friends (all 9 years old) and they loved it. Lots of action and laughter and silly characters saying silly things.
I liked it as just a fun film to watch – but if you start going into the deeper aspects of it, well, the allure fades.
I took my family on Friday and we all ( from 8yrs to 46) enjoyed it as did the audience judging by the laughter. Sure somethngs could be improved, but I had fun.
Any scene with Amy Adams was delightful, we saw her recently in "Sunshine Cleaning", what a great range.
As early as December 2007, the release date was set for Summer 2009, so the only person that statement couldn't have been about was GWB. What's more, I tend to doubt that that line was the first filmed, so there was opportunity to change it depending on the outcome of the election.
That said, unless the date is mentioned in the movie, I'm willing to presume that the studio was referring to some President in the near future/alternate timeline, that's supposed to be "right about now," but not actually right now. FWIW.
My wife and kids really enjoyed this but i thought it was an absolutely dreadful movie. yes the effects were great, but the characters were irritating and the whole movie was just a dreadful bore from start to end.
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Recommeneded websites…
[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.