Spoiled by their upbringing with no idea what wild life is really like, four animals from New York Central Zoo escape, unwittingly assisted by four absconding penguins, and find themselves in Madagascar, among a bunch of merry lemurs
When first introduced to Napoleon and Al Capone, Ivan the Terrible says his title is mistranslated, and he calls himself Ivan the Awesome. Although obviously meant to be a comical line, it is not that far from the truth: Ivan's title is indeed a bad translation. A more accurate form of the original Russian term, Ivan Grozny, is "Ivan the Fearsome", "the Magnificent" or "The Admirable". It is important to emphasize that, in Russian, the word "grozny" does not have a bad connotation. See more »
The Smithsonian Institution does maintain storage for items not on display in the museums but they are located throughout the Washington D.C. suburbs, not in sub basements under the museums. See more »
It's hard to believe it was 3 years ago that the first "Night at the Museum" film was released. It feels like it was just last year that I watched the first movie, which was fun, humorous, and had heart. I was disappointed that "Battle of the Smithsonian" was such a bad film compared to the first. This time around, the museum is bigger, there's more characters, and there's a slightly bigger threat and villain(s). Yes, the museum is bigger in this movie (the Smithsonian is actually composed of a bunch of museums), but we only really get to see about two of the museums. There's a lot of characters, and the important ones from the first film come back, but they're not really used. Our favorite characters from the first movie are, for 99% of the film, trapped and locked away by some of the villainous exhibits from the Smithsonian. So basically, the big ensemble cast of comedians are underused and are wasted. The new characters and villains are entertaining at some points in the movies, but they also feel underused. Most of the focus is on the pharaoh villain, while Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Al Capone remained as the pharaoh's dumb lackeys.
Another thing I felt was lacking in this movie is the threat level. Ben Stiller's character never seems to be really threatened by the pharaoh. Whenever Stiller's character gets captured (which is about 2 or 3 times), he looks bored and calm. He doesn't react as if his life's threatened. Also, the villains never act like they're really going to kill anyone. The villains just act like children. This movie uses A LOT of SPECIAL EFFECTS. Sometimes the special effects are used for no real point. For example, the fact that now paintings in the museum come to life. This didn't seem to happen in the first movie, so it feels like the filmmakers were milking the power of the "magical tablet" until they ran out of ideas.
One of the only things in this movie that was worthwhile was Amelia Earhart, played by Amy Adams. Her character is so lively and spontaneous that she brings the movie to life (only when she's in the scene). Amy Adams' character is the only important exhibit on Ben Stiller's side against the enemies. Over the course of the movie, the two fall for each other. It's kind of weird if you think about it, since she's made of plastic and he's human. And I don't understand the ending where Stiller meets a character resembling Amelia Earhart and seemingly falls for her. Does this mean that its okay to love someone else that looks like your other love?
Overall, the movie was a waste and a disappointment. It's a fun family film, and it did keep my attention (although I felt really tired halfway into the movie maybe that was because it was like 11 or 12 at night). The movie is entertaining and its fun to watch everything in the exhibit, but it wasn't that "good." Also, I do like the ending, which reveals the fate of all of the exhibits from the original museum. Oh, and the Teddy Roosevelt bust (the brown one) had a pretty funny part, even though it only lasted for less than a minute.
3 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?