Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

NATM2 is not terrible by any stretch of the imagination - but the special effects are so in your face all the time that there's never a chance to enjoy the amazing wizardry.

For us it was just too fast ', too frantic, no-one got any development, and all the actors have become line givers for the next piece of hocus-pocus.

Plot was fine, ideas abundant, some even really good - but we left feeling a) breathless and b) stuffed.

Much too much, even for the shortest most demanding attention span. The film replaced movie magic (And it has the makings of it) with slight of hand tricks.

At best fluff, at worst, a real headache. Sorry, but the kids found it all too much too...

Fmovies: I really really loved the first NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM, it was funny, fast-paced, enjoyable, with great CGI effects and with some great performances. And until I saw the sequel I had very high hopes and I was really pleased at the end of the first viewing.

In BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN Larry Daley left the night watchman job for becoming a flash-light salesman. Unfortunately when he returns to the museum, everything changed for worse: all the exhibits are ready to be transferred to the Smithsonian Museum while the New York museum is under reparations' work. When Larry follows his friends to the Smithsonian he has to fight (along with the exhibits there that are George Armstrong Custer, a HUGE octopus, some air force men, various statues) the evil pharaon Kahmunrah and Al Capone, Ivan the Terrible and Napoleon and their respective armies.

What I liked of this movie are the various new characters, both good and bad, and the strange exhibits of the Smithsonian. The cast is good as always, even though Ramy Malek and Robin Williams have their roles reduced, but Amy Adams sizzles as Amelia Earheart, giving here another good performance.

In substance, one of the best sequels ever and it lives up to the predecessor? Yes. Worth a watch like the other two movies in the franchise.

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

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian fmovies. I thought the first one was great, but felt the second one was in a foot race to show as many of the old characters and new ones as fast as possible and get to the end. But then again, when are sequels ever as good? Let me take that back, Terminator 2 was awesome. And Lord of the Rings. And several others, but this one was in a frenzy to go nowhere. Stop. Take a Breath. Develop a more interesting script. I'm sure the writer had something better in mind and the studios just plucked the eyeballs out of it until it was just what it became in the end. This could have been one of those franchise things that do more than just make money. Yes, it will make money, but it could have been sprinkled with a little more TLC. Let's get back to basics. You know the movie is going to sell. You have the money and all the actors to sell it. Why not just make a movie with a better storyline. The best part of the movie was the trailer.

The first film was far from spectacular, but it was tolerable and a bit of fun to watch. I came across the second movie when it was shown on television and its terrible. It has been done once and wasn't brilliant, the producers really shouldn't have bothered with number two. The whole film is filled with terrible far-fetched acting. Every line just tries to include a joke that is not even remotely funny and frankly, leaves me with a blank expression on my face the whole time. The whole movie is just "trying too hard". Too see some pretty famous faces in it, is a shame as it is a real downfall in their career. i'm surprised I actually ended up watching the whole movie, maybe I was hoping it would get better. Evidently not! It is saying something when you are watching this movie with kids and they even turn round to you and say "Is this meant to be funny?" 1/10

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.