Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

There's an old saying in Hebrew that claims that if you try and catch as much as you can, you'll end up having nothing at all. After viewing Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, I can sadly say that the same can be said when regarding this lesser sequel to the 2006 smash hit.

Even though most film critics despised the original movie, the first Night at the Museum was actually one of my favorite films of that year. For me, the film worked on two levels. First, by waking the inner-child in all of us and making us feel the magic Ben Stiller's character Larry experiences once the exhibits in his museum come to life in all their glory in front of him. Second, by telling a very straight-out and heart warming coming of age story of a grown-up divorced man who has to take control of his life and get his act together (with the museum working more as a metaphor of sorts). I also related to the additional educational values the film had to offer, another theme I felt received a lesser emphasis in the sequel.

In the second installment of the Night of the Museum series, much of the initial magic is already lost from the get-go. We already know the artifacts come to life and how, and the general feeling of suspense is gone. To make things worse, the whole story feels convoluted and unreal. We're expected to believe that Larry has turned from a no-good night guard at the museum in the first film to this mega-successful businessman in the second installment during the course of only a few years (and after being a virtual nobody for the vast majority of his life). I mean come on, Hollywood - Where did the charming loser from the first film go so quickly? Stiller's Larry is hardly likable at the beginning, and once he learns that his lovable exhibits/friends are moving to the Smithsonian museum (after the Museum of Natural History closed for technological renovation) things start happening so fast, that his motives for leaving his comfortable job to help rescue his friends are left undeveloped and unconvincing.

The main course of this sequel is of course the special effects created by the two museum's re-animated exhibits, with the evil Egyptian Kamunrah (The Simpson's Hank Azaria) acting as the main villain who operates the evil Smithsonian exhibits who strive for world domination yadda yadda yadda. Some effects are cute (Al Capone's gangsters brought back to life in black and white, the heroes entering an old painting, the Lincoln memorial rising from his chair, amongst others) and some are once again undeveloped and underused. At times, it seems so much is happening on the screen, that you don't really know where to look or who to concentrate on. Many returning characters from the first film are outrageously underused (including Robin Williams' Teddy Roosevelt and Owen Wilson's Jedediah) and many comedians who are brought specifically for the film contribute blink-and-you-miss-it performances, including Ricky Gervais and Jonah Hill). The only true contribution for the film is the lovely Amy Adams (Enchanted), who portrays a fluffy re-animated Amelia Earhart who seems more lost than ever.

To sum things up, I'd say that Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian may have been cute at times, but it was mostly useless, as it really didn't add any significant notion to the elements presented in its predecessor. While that film felt like an instant classic to me, this one felt more like a quick money-grab with a lot of missed potential.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is the second film in the Night at the Museum series. While it isn't much different than the first film I have to say it isn't quite as good. Ben Stiller was pretty good but I don't think anybody else really stuck out. One thing I that disappointed by was the lack of screen time for Steve Coogan and Owen Wilson, or Octavius and Jedediah. In the first movie, they stole the show. But in this movie, they are underused like most of the others in the cast. Night at the Museum 2 has its funny parts, but seems to lack the charm and fun of the first movie. It's a worthy sequel that meets the standards of the first movie, but doesn't exceed them. You might want to wait for it's DVD/Blu-Ray release, but seeing in theaters is good too. Thanks for reading this review.

The first Night at the Museum is one of my favorite movies and I had high hopes for this one but what happened??? First, the bad: there were several characters that I was really disappointed to see did not have big (or at least significant) parts especially Ricky Gervais and Owen Wilson. Ricky Gervais (Dr. McPhee) really added to the humor in the first movie, but he just seemed so serious and boring in this sequel. And I thought Owen Wilson's part was kind of disappointing too. Ben Stiller's character just didn't seem as into it as before. I can't quite put my finger on it but there was definitely something lacking.

The good: the effects were amazing! I loved all the animated characters (the moving paintings and how they could go inside them; the Einstein bobbleheads and the Jonas brother cupids, the black and white Al Capone, etc.). One of my favorite scenes was when they went inside the black and white painting. Another favorite was the little arguments between Larry and Brandon (Jonah Hill) and Larry and Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria). Probably the funniest scenes in the movie. By far the best character in the movie: Hank Azaria as Kahmunrah. And the lisp was just a genius touch. Another funny but rather unimportant character was Napoleon. I thought Ben Stiller and Amy Adams were cute together. But that's pretty much it. I wasn't impressed by Adams' performance. It was just so-so. I mean, when has she NOT played a bubbly character?

It just didn't seem as... magical compared to the first movie. I was pretty letdown because using the Smithsonian, the movie could have had a lot more potential.

In a world where unnecessary sequels are plaguing the movie world and are seemingly released for little other reason than to milk the 'cash cow', Night at the Museum 2 is a refreshing exception (unlike Meet the Parents 2,3,4...). It's arguably better than the first.

Although better on different levels…The historic characters are not just new and improved but also come with a greater comic value. In what the film lacks in a relatively mundane storyline, it compensates with a wonderful underlying message/moral. There's also a love story again but what struck me as more potent was the greater bond that exists between the rest of the characters; Larry and Jedediah, Jedediah and Octavius etc. The score/music was noticeably better as well, very listenable. Of course the whole picture was far more 'epic' and I, for one, am a fan of this. On the face of this, its a comedy blended perfectly with action like a cocktail of strawberry and champagne – and very much like Tropic Thunder (although on a different level of course). Hank Azaria was brilliant as Kahmunrah especially in the way he could turn from serious evil to light-hearted joker in the blink of an eye. Speaking of which, him and his trio of evil helpers were fantastic together, as am sure you'll all agree.

The one downside is that too many of the best comedy moments were shown in the trailers, so kind of dampening the effect of many of the genuinely funny moments. But there's still enough to keep you chuckling away! So should there be a third? If they can continue to make people laugh whilst rummaging through their popcorn during the action scenes, I'd day why not? After all, what is life without a bit of fun?

I really liked the first Night at the Museum, not bowled over, but very entertained. It had great special effects and it was great to see childhood legend Dick Van Dyke again. I was looking forward to this sequel, hoping for the same sort of entertainment. This is not a terrible film by all means, but as a sequel and film I couldn't help feeling disappointed.

Granted, the special effects were absolutely wonderful, and the cinematography, locations, costumes, sets and editing striking. Granted, the score was rousing and fun, and most of the direction solid. And granted the actors give it their all, Ben Stiller is solid if occasionally going overboard, Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are absolute hoots and Robin Williams returns as Roosevelt and along with Azaria is the standout of the actors playing the historical figures.

However, the recurring support cast aren't given much to do excepting Robin Williams, Owen Wilson is rather annoying, Napolean and Al Capone are written as quite badly-written caricatures and don't get me started on the Jonas Brothers, their presence added absolutely nothing to the proceedings and they were not funny at all. And if only there was a story and script that were consistently engaging, but the script and sight gags are very hit and miss and the story is thin, and these are further disadvantaged by the overlong length, tacky ending and too many scenes that drag.

In conclusion, watchable but quite average. 5/10 Bethany Cox