So I figured I'd go ahead. and start my first film review this morning. Last night my girlfriend and I felt like going to see a movie and could not decide between Angels and Demons or the latest installment of Night at the Museum, but due to what time they were showing, we went with this summer's main family comedy. I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this film, but it was one that I was wanting to see due to the fact that I enjoyed the first one when I went with my family back in 2006. They were both directed by Shawn Levy, both written by Robert Garant and Thomas Lennon and both films starred the same base cast, but for some reason Battle of the Smithsonian just didn't make me chuckle like Night at the Museum did and I would like to take a few minutes and dissect why that may be.
TIMEOUT: No, I did not think that the original Night at the Museum was some over-the-top funny film, I simply thought it was a great FAMILY COMEDY and got a good laugh out of it with my two younger sisters. Having said that, I will continue.
Something that first irritated me about Battle of the Smithsonian was the way the opening was setup. Yes, I understand that it is a sequel and in order to have a good sequel, you often need a decent amount of reference to the prequel, but let's remind ourselves here that this is a FAMILY COMEDY. Battle of the Smithsonian had way too many references to Night at the Museum, too many to the point that you really needed to see the original before understanding the second installment. For something like the Star Wars or Star Trek trilogies, things that are epic and have a cult-following, yes, these movies are in a series with a dedicated story line, see the A New Hope before you see Empire Strikes Back! Go watch the Wrath of Khan before you seen The Search for Spock! Yes, I get that, but for a family film, why make that an issues? No one has to see the prequels before they see Shrek 2 or 3 (The Third). While I may be going over the top here and acting like Battle of the Smithsonian couldn't be understood without seeing Night at the Museum, I apologize, it's not exactly the case, but it still does have that feeling that Levy and company wanted it that way.
Since we have that out of the way, what I really want to say is that this movie just wasn't funny. I'm sorry, but it wasn't, which is sad with such a great comedic cast. Ben Stiller didn't make me laugh, Owen Wilson was bland, Christopher Guest was decent at best, and the man I was expecting the most from was Hank Azaria, really just had one scene where he made me laugh, but I will tell ya, I laughed hard. Still, overall, I just didn't laugh very often last night.
Now give credit to Azaria on playing his main character, Kamunruh, as well as the voices of "The Thinker" and Abraham Lincoln, but Azaria usually always makes me laugh, but here he was just... vanilla?
Anyone who saw the original Night at the Museum would agree that while Ricky Gervais might have had only a small role as Dr. McPhee, his dialogue made audiences laugh their asses off. So naturally I expected him to do the same in Battle of the Smithsonian, but no, it was more vanilla than anything else. AND I LOVE THE COMEDY OF RICKY GERVAIS! Yes, that's how bad his lines were.
The attempted love affair between Ben Stiller and Amy Adams (Amelia Earhart) was just atrocious and unexpected. Now I'm thankful that there wasn't a spin at the end where the two end up being together just at night when Earhart comes to life, but even trying to add it in there was an obvious stretch that failed miserably and some of that could have been partially due Adams overacting job. Personally, I see Adams as a talented and versatile actress, but while playing Amelia Earhart she was just too over the top, forcing lines of awkward dialogue that were meant to stress what time period the came from, but it was just too overbearing.
Another thing that got to me was how the museum exhibits defied the rules of the original film, about how they cannot stray too far away from the tablet or else they'll freeze and go back to their "natural" state. Here we have not only the entire Smithsonian district coming to life, but the National Mall becoming animated as well whether the tablet had close proximity or not.
Yes, I realize that I should take the same attitude to a family movie like I do to a sci-fi flick where you just can't over think it and accept things the way they are, but the tablet thing along with the fact that Earhart was able to fit virtually all the exhibits of the American Museum of Natural History in the cargo hold of her Lockheed Electra was beyond me.
Yes, I realize all of this has been very vague, but there was just so much in this film that really disappointed me that I can't go into too much detail on it.
Unless you child or little sister is begging you to take them to see Battle of the Smithsonian, do yourself a favor and avoid it.
I give it a 2 / 5
Since we have that out of the way, what I really want to say is that this movie just wasn't funny. I'm sorry, but it wasn't, which is sad with such a great comedic cast. Ben Stiller didn't make me laugh, Owen Wilson was bland, Christopher Guest was decent at best, and the man I was expecting the most from was Hank Azaria, really just had one scene where he made me laugh, but I will tell ya, I laughed hard. Still, overall, I just didn't laugh very often last night.
Now give credit to Azaria on playing his main character, Kamunruh, as well as the voices of "The Thinker" and Abraham Lincoln, but Azaria usually always makes me laugh, but here he was just... vanilla?
Anyone who saw the original Night at the Museum would agree that while Ricky Gervais might have had only a small role as Dr. McPhee, his dialogue made audiences laugh their asses off. So naturally I expected him to do the same in Battle of the Smithsonian, but no, it was more vanilla than anything else. AND I LOVE THE COMEDY OF RICKY GERVAIS! Yes, that's how bad his lines were.
The attempted love affair between Ben Stiller and Amy Adams (Amelia Earhart) was just atrocious and unexpected. Now I'm thankful that there wasn't a spin at the end where the two end up being together just at night when Earhart comes to life, but even trying to add it in there was an obvious stretch that failed miserably and some of that could have been partially due Adams overacting job. Personally, I see Adams as a talented and versatile actress, but while playing Amelia Earhart she was just too over the top, forcing lines of awkward dialogue that were meant to stress what time period the came from, but it was just too overbearing.
Another thing that got to me was how the museum exhibits defied the rules of the original film, about how they cannot stray too far away from the tablet or else they'll freeze and go back to their "natural" state. Here we have not only the entire Smithsonian district coming to life, but the National Mall becoming animated as well whether the tablet had close proximity or not.
Yes, I realize that I should take the same attitude to a family movie like I do to a sci-fi flick where you just can't over think it and accept things the way they are, but the tablet thing along with the fact that Earhart was able to fit virtually all the exhibits of the American Museum of Natural History in the cargo hold of her Lockheed Electra was beyond me.
Yes, I realize all of this has been very vague, but there was just so much in this film that really disappointed me that I can't go into too much detail on it.
Unless you child or little sister is begging you to take them to see Battle of the Smithsonian, do yourself a favor and avoid it.
I give it a 2 / 5
0 Responses to "Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian"
Post a Comment