IMDb user comments for
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 16:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

157 reviews in total

---

87 out of 137 people found the following review useful:
Exceeded my Expectations, 22 May 2009

Author: bjohnt from Canada

When I saw the trailer for this, I was pretty excited. I loved the whole premise of the first one, and having a sequel opened up whole new opportunities. I was excited when I saw all these famous characters from history being mashed together, Al Capone, Napoleon Bonaparte, Amelia Earhart, to name a few.

I walked into the theater not expecting to much, but when I left I was very happy with it. They handled every characters personality beautifully, and the inside jokes were hilarious. I don't want to give much away, but trust me, you'll laugh. It tackles many themes like, a house divided cannot stand, the way to happiness is doing what you love, don't dwell on the past, etc. For a family flick they handle this jumbled cast of characters with complex personalities amazingly. They threw away most of the characters from the first movie to make way for the newer characters, which I didn't like that much, but how many characters can you throw in a story to have it make sense?

This film is an amazing example of a movie made for kids and adults. Kids will enjoy the silly humor, and the monkey. While adults will laugh at the onslaught of in-jokes, and trust me, there's a lot.

All in all, this was a great movie, blew me away. The highlight for me was Hank Azaria, that lisp kills me every time.

---

83 out of 139 people found the following review useful:
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Underdeveloped Plot and Characters, 22 May 2009

Author: Sa'ar Vardi (saarvardi@walla.co.il) from Kfar Saba, Israel

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 and 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.

---

27 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
A good family film, more fun then the first!, 4 June 2009

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, it's been 3 years since we had the comedy hit Night at the Museum, naturally they went for a sequel to either make more money or spill the story for what it's worth. Eh, I pick all of thee above. But surprisingly Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian was actually a lot better then I had expected, in fact, I think I enjoyed it much more then the first Night at the Museum. Now the first Night at the Museum movie was alright, it didn't really thrill me, Ben Stiller is praised so much as a comedic actor but I've only found him funny in Zoolander. But when it comes to movies like Meet the Parents, There's Something About Mary and Night at the Museum, it's usually the supporting cast that carries the movie and he seems just like the same character in every movie. Once again the supporting cast saves this movie and makes it a great family film.

Larry Daley is now head of Daley Devices, a company he founded to manufacture his inventions. These inventions, including the Glow-in-the-Dark Flashlight, were created from his experiences as a former night guard. He finds that the American Museum of Natural History is closed for upgrades and renovations, and the museum pieces are moving to the Federal Archives at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. On the last night, Larry meets the museum pieces such as Teddy Roosevelt, Rexy the T Rex Skeleton, and Dexter the Monkey and finds out that several exhibits, including Teddy, Rexy, the Easter Island Head, and Ahkmenrah are not moving to The Smithsonian Institution, the other exhibits will no longer be animated. The next night, Larry gets a call from Jedediah, saying that Dexter stole the tablet, and that Kahmunrah, Ahkmenrah's older brother, is attacking them. Larry takes a plane to Washington and visits the National Air and Space Museum, the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Castle to find the Federal Archives.

Over all Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is worth the recommendation, I'd say a matinée if you want to see it with the family. Hank Azaria puts a bit of a strange personality for Kahmunrah, but he provides quite a few good laughs. Along with Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan who are back as the cowboy and the roman soldier, great chemistry right there. They have this scene that nearly killed me in laughter, since they're so small they go 300 style in trying to stab all the bad guy's feet, great style and homage to the war films. Amy Adams pulls in a great performance that I feel is going to be over looked as Amelia Earhart, she has that old school Hollywood look to her and personality that was a perfect choice. There are some great moments in this sequel but there are some really silly one's as well, so over all I'd say it's worth the look, it's a good family film, but again nothing too memorable.

6/10

---

14 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Just another Hollywood big-budget sequel., 5 July 2009

Author: SophomoreSlump from Malaysia

The reason why I went to watch this is because the first one was such a good family movie. It has humour, suspense, slight action and in depth plot and twist.

The sequel unfortunately is far from that. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is about Larry Daley who has a better job since the first movie and has now moved on to a different life. Little did he knows that his friends at the Museum of Natural History are about to be shipped and stored at the famous Smithsonian Institute. Long story short, he now has to save little Jedediah and Octavius from a pharaoh who is trying to take over the world. Sounds weird. Because it is. It feels like the writers were out of ideas.

So what they do was they throw in a hell lot of characters including Kahmunrah, a crazy pharaoh who is trying to take over the world, Albert Einstein, Abe Lincoln and even Darth Vader.

The story seemed rush and some parts didn't make sense. For example, why did Kahmunrah, the threatens to suffocate Jedediah in an hour-glass when Jedediah is just a little statue who will most probably come back to life the night after even if he 'died' today.

But negativity aside, I have to say that the actor that really stood out was Hank Azaria, playing the villain Kahmunrah. He was loud and funny and not to mention he even voiced Abe Lincoln and The Thinker. Ben Stiller is just his usual self. And Amy Adams was fun and very adorable as the female pilot Amelia Earhart, but the gung-ho attitude gets old pretty fast.

The special effect and the score of the movie were okay. Not too good, not too bad.

Overall, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is just another Hollywood big-budget movie that has a massive room for improvement and really could've done so much better.

---

18 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
The Dumbing Down of American Comedy!, 4 June 2009

Author: Turfseer from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

From the outset. I kept wondering how ordinary security guard schlub Ben Stiller could so easily become an infomercial king, hawking glow in the dark flashlights and earning gobs of money. Then I realized that the screenwriters couldn't just have him start off as a security guard at the museum again because people don't want to see the same thing twice when they pay money for a sequel. Nonetheless, the infomercial angle ends up being dropped like a hot potato and Stiller is back at the museum just like in the original. This time he learns that his pals at the Museum of Natural History are being shipped off to the basement archives at the Smithsonian. To make matters worse, they have to deal with some crazy Pharoah guy who needs to figure out a secret code that will unlock a door to ancient Egypt where all of his nasty minions are just waiting to get loose and wreak havoc upon an unsuspecting world.

There are moments in 'Battle for the Smithsonian' that feel like the script was dispensed with and the action was completely improvised. Take the scene with Stiller trying to break into the basement at the Smithsonian, opposed by the security guard played by Jonah Hill. The joke is that the security guard is a wuss and is easily dissuaded by the more persuasive Stiller. And this is the problem for every character in the film. They are all buffoons in one way or another and carry no moral weight.

The antagonist is played by Hank Azaria who has a one note part as a lisping Pharoah, Kahmunrah. He's joined by three villains from history: Napoleon Bonaparte, Ivan the Terrible and a young Al Capone. The three allies of the Egyptian have virtually nothing to do throughout the film—Bonaparte at one point jumps on top of Stiller, Capone waves a machine gun and Ivan basically scowls.

Stiller's allies fare no better. Owen Wilson plays a miniature cowboy trapped inside an hourglass by Kahmunrah. We're supposed to laugh as he is gradually submerged by the sand inside the hourglass pouring down on top of him. Steve Coogan is Wilson's buddy, playing another 'miniature', this time the famous Roman Emperor 'Octavius'. The Emperor's big moment is when he mistakes a squirrel for a giant creature and rides him back into the Smithsonian thinking he can take on Kahmunrah's army of bad guys. No laughs there! Bill Hader plays General Custer with an inferiority complex: he bemoans the fact that he'll always be remembered for his one bad moment at the Little Big Horn with all his other accomplishments ignored. While Custer is a complete clown, the Indian Princess Sacajawea berates him not for his hatred of Native Americans but rather for his incompetence as a soldier.

It takes a long time before Stiller's love interest, feminist icon Amelia Earhardt, played by Amy Adams, does what she does best: i.e. fly a plane. But most of the time she's nothing more than the feeble love interest in the film—chasing Stiller around, acting a bit spunky and providing moral support. Other wasted parts include Robin Williams as Teddy Roosevelt (in dual incarnations as Teddy on horseback and as a talking bust), a completely forgettable Attila the Hun and a bunch of grunting Neanderthals.

The plot is quite disappointing. After Kahmunrah finds out the 'secret code' from a Bobblehead Albert Einstein and unleashes the forces of evil, they all inexplicably run back into the portal after a giant Abraham Lincoln (roused from his sleep at the Lincoln Memorial) confronts them. Lincoln is reduced to an awkward giant, more like Lurch of the old Adams Family TV series than the great statesman of American history.

'Battle' was written mainly for the special effects department to show their stuff. There are a few clever visual effects when famous paintings come to life (most notable is when Stiller and Adams jump into the famous scene on VJ Day with the sailor and the nurse making out in Times Square). Rodan's 'Thinker' comes to life as a wise-talking Guido and there are three angel statues singing updated rap versions of r&b classics. All of this is nice to look at but it's simply not very funny.

I have never been a big fan of Ben Stiller but here he outdoes himself in a role that relies mainly on slapstick humor. There is nothing clever or witty about Battle for the Smithsonian. It represents a further dumbing down of American comedy. And the producers here should heed the old admonition—what goes around, comes around! Hopefully Kahmunrah will be putting a new curse on them in the future—at the box office, where it hurts!

---

29 out of 53 people found the following review useful:
Fun, Adventurous but not that big of a deal, 22 May 2009

Author: bearfaceproductions from Puerto Rico

Honestly, I knew that this movie wasn't a big of a deal from the start. The movie is a little action packed and somewhat fun, but in comedy this movie fails. I did get a few chuckles but not much else and I barley heard the audience laugh. This movie's plot is not that good neither. However the movie had some new things to offer, which were very well made. The special effects were very well made, this was one of the reasons that this movie was fun. The children might find this movie very fun since its made especially for them. Ben Stller should stop doing these movies because the first one was the one that had many unexpected things but the plot in this movie is very well known and the ending is very obvious.If you plan on watching this movie, take the kids and leave your adulthood at door but don't expect much else. I still think that the first movie was better than this one.

---

52 out of 100 people found the following review useful:
Stiller Going Strong, 20 May 2009

Author: ajaymittal from United Kingdom

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?

---

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
An uninspired rehash, 25 May 2009

Author: jaymoonskip from San Diego

This movie is unfortunately all too typical of Hollywood's relentless preoccupation with milking every "franchise" for all it's worth. They put out a sequel to a good original film, but they don't bother to have any new ideas, so we're subjected to a tired rerun that's memorable only for how disappointing it is. I gave it 4/10 for some interesting visual effects, for Robin Williams (wonderful again as Teddy Roosevelt), and for the breath of fresh air brought by Amy Adams (in a role that's beneath her). But Ben Stiller, who isn't a stellar actor anyway, could have mailed this one in. The thing that really struck me in the theater was the rarity of hearty laughter from the audience -- it was mostly occasional chuckles. Inventive comedy is pretty much missing here, and heroes and villains alike are simply boring.

---

29 out of 55 people found the following review useful:
The Battle to Stay Awake, 12 June 2009

Author: simon-prometheus from Canada

At the very least, the follow up to the comedy hit Night at the Museum could have directly copied its predecessor and still made the green. But in attempting to one-up itself, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian directly copies its predecessor in spirit, while simultaneously being even worse in practice than the already obnoxious original.

I have quite literally never seen a film flaunt its budget so shamelessly. Museum 2 slides from unnecessary effects sequence to unnecessary effects sequence, many of which aren't even that impressive. Add in about fifty too many characters, a dull lead, tedious pacing and stale humour and you have an experience that strangely I cannot call outwardly bad but is simply banal and monotonous in the worst way. Even the central players, Ben Stiller as Larry Daley and Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart, can't have more than 20 minutes of screen time each. It is as if the filmmakers went to the Smithsonian wrote down every single display and said "alright, lets fit these all into the movie". The whole film feels like it was sponsored by the Smithsonian and that flaw infused with the inflated budget leads to an endlessly fragmented endeavour. As if it was simply the aforementioned exec reading off the list of exhibits for the entire running time.

The plot is actually non-existent. The tablet of Ahmunrah from the original has been shipped to the Smithsonian along with all his faux friends from the Museum of Natural History in NYC, where Daley has moved on from to become an inventor. After finding out the news he then rushes to Washington to save them. But a struggle erupts between the bad and good displays as they come to life during the night. End plot and let the battle begin. All I can say is thank god that Hank Azaria is in this film (he plays the evil Egyptian conqueror Kahmunrah) because is he was absent this would have been utterly, utterly disastrous (more so than it already is). I believe I laughed exactly four times (in addition to Azaria's scenes), once at a fairly inspired 300 reference, at a cameo from Jonah Hill, a sequence with some bobble-head Einstein's and a few gags with Larry and his flashlight. That is about a laugh every half hour in a film that was already far too long.

At the very least when you have a movie like this there is a chance for redemption with a strong lead, which Stiller does not supply. He is doing it for a paycheque and boy does it show. Adams as Earhart is fine (but actually a tad slutty) and the budget also seems to also have covered cheques for about every single comedian working in Hollywood from stars of The Office, to Bill Hader, Ricky Gervais, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, et al. Cameos, famous exhibits, effects, and the 'story' all combine into nothing; a tedious, soulless and uninspired film that somehow manages to squander the cast effortlessly. The only battle I will ever admit to being associated with was the battle to stay awake.

Read all my reviews at: simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
The pieces are great, but nothing hangs together and its just a punch of bits adrift(aka Great bits in search of a plot), 30 May 2009

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Messy sequel to Night at the Museum is no where near as satisfying as the earlier film. Here some of the objects from the Museum of Natural History have been shifted to the Smithsonian and Stiller has to go get them back. Unfortunately Hank Azaria as a resurrected Pharaoh wants to take over the world and seeks to do so with the help of other bad guys in the Smithsonian. Scatter shot film is full of wonderfully winning ideas and moments, unfortunately the film is just a collection of moments and ideas that ramble by with not so much as a plot line as a barely visible pencil sketch of a line. I liked most of the pieces and I liked the ending but I squirmed in my seat as each really cool bit went on too long as the filmmakers tried to show off the neat thing they came up with. yes guys and girls its all neat, but with out a real plot none of this works. A case in point are the appearances of Oscar and Darth Vader. Its a funny scene but it doesn't belong in the movie. Its all funny scenes, but most of them, probably half to three quarters of the film, could be cut. Worth a look but on cable or DVD (as a rental)

---

---

Page 1 of 16:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot synopsis	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history