Click here for the review of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

Isn't this early...and does Robin Williams have a bigger part in this cause he was the best part of the first.

I didn't like the first one either, and the previous for this one were terribly unfunny, so I'm definitely skipping this one. What I certainly do not understand is how can a movie be so lifeless while employing so much comedic starpower.

Boggles the mind...

While the first one was kind of cute and harmless (the best thing was Alan Silvestri's amazing score), the previews for this were beyond embarrassing. It's like they cranked up the wacky factor to 100. At least in the first movie they actually tried to have the historical figures act like they would. In this one, apparently every important person in American history was a cartoon character.

Though Amy Adams might make me rent this. Just saying.

harmless. pointless. dumb.

hahahah thats so funny i laughed out loud.

The first one was no so bad, it had a few enjoyable elements. I'll probably catch this if I have time with my g/f. I like spending time inert at the cinema sometimes.

I thought the best part of the original movie was Ben Stiller's character. Say what you will, Stiller knows how to play the lovable loser. In the original movie, Stiller was a character who was easy to pull for and, I think, audiences connected with. From JB's review of #2, it sounds like this aspect of the story has been lost in the sequel, which would remove it from even the Netflix list for me.

Oh yeah, in the original, I loved seeing Dick Van Dyke playing against type. A minor role, but priceless.

He's in (I think) three scenes, none of which lasts more than about two minutes.

Typo alert!

Anyway, I might end up seeing this with my family over Memorial day weekend. The first was, as you said, harmless, pointless, and dumb, and entertaining in a cotton candy kind-of way.

That's how pointless it is, JB can't even be bothered with correct spelling over this.

Slight tangent - What sort of money is this expected to make?

From Wikipedia the first installment:

Budget: $110,000,000

Gross revenue:
Domestic:
$250,863,268
Worldwide:
$574,480,450

That's quite meaty I think, no? I suppose the second is expected to meet the same standards? What sort of buzz is there? Word of mouth etc?

Fox is expecting it to make about $175K domestically and about the same (or slightly more) overseas, for a total of about $375K.

It's not off to such a great start if those numbers are the goal. While $15K is very respectable for an opening Friday, that's not the kind of number that will lead to $175K. And the movie really only has a one-week clear window since its target audience will head for UP next weekend and LAND OF THE LOST the weekend after.

Thanks.

I had a feeling this one would be a little less successful than the first. The budget is 150million, I believe, and so does it look likely to be a financial success? I read that Lennon and Garant have another in the early stages of writing, and I'm curious as to whether it will happen or not.

I got back from the movie and I share James's dislikes for it, but for different reasons. Well okay, it was a big special effects spectacle which was not that interesting, and the action lacked any form of excitement.

Most frustratingly, this movie has an amazing comedic cast. How a movie with Ben Stiller, Ricky Gervais, Jonah Hill, Steve Coogan, Craig Robinson, Hank Azaria, Bill Hader, Robin Williams, and Christopher Guest can fail as a comedy is beyond me. There were so many attempts at humor which were horribly painful. Not only that, but the film had so many self reflexive jokes that were trying really hard to be clever, but just didn't work. Sometimes I prefer dumb comedy over a comedy that tries too hard to be smart.

For me, worst movie of the year so far. Amy Adams is really the only reason to see it.

Saw it at the drive-in.

A little below average, held my attention but just barely. My eight year old son liked it, but I could tell he didn't enjoy it as much as the original. Heck, he was more interested in the popcorn and Skittles. And Raisinets. And M&M's. (Ouch. My teeth still hurt.)

The best thing about the movie? Abraham Lincoln.

I give the movie 2.5 stars. And really it's because of Amy Adams' simply AMAZING performance. She breathed life into her essentially thankless role. She really blew me away with this, not to mention she made the romance aspect of the movie feel a little more believable, and heartbreaking as well.

I just saw the movie... and I would agree with JB's assessment of two stars. My reaction at the end of the movie was-- meh.

I disagree about Amy Adams though. I found her performance annoying after a while, something not helped by the slightly disturbing implication of having a romance with a wax statue and the way the movie completely devalues that romance at the end (Ben Stiller meets a woman that looks exactly like but is unrelated to Amelia, sparks fly).

Actually, I found most of the characters very annoying, even Owen Wilson's cowboy. But Ben Stiller can really do "reluctant hero".

I did not watch the first movie, so the story didn't quite make sense for me.

The best line imo belongs to