Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics What's this?

User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 116 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Night has fallen upon the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. The guides have gone home, the lights are out, the school kids are tucked in their beds...yet something incredible is stirring as former night guard Larry Daley finds himself lured into his biggest, mostNight has fallen upon the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. The guides have gone home, the lights are out, the school kids are tucked in their beds...yet something incredible is stirring as former night guard Larry Daley finds himself lured into his biggest, most imagination-boggling adventure yet in which history truly comes alive. In this second installment of the Night at the Museum saga, Larry faces a battle so epic it could only unfold in the corridors of the world’s largest museum. Now, Larry must try to save his formerly inanimate friends from what could be their last stand amid the wonders of the Smithsonian, all of which, from the famous paintings on the walls to the rocket ships in the halls, suddenly have a mind of their own. (20th Century Fox) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 31
  2. Negative: 9 out of 31
  1. Battle of the Smithsonian has plenty of life. But it's Adams who gives it zing.
  2. Reviewed by: Michelle Orange
    70
    Though it's a little slow to start and some of the humor clunks, the film features a wholesome charm, some truly dazzling effects (the Lincoln Memorial alone is worth it), and enough mild, parent-nip in-jokes to keep all but the stone-hearted happy.
  3. Reviewed by: Amy Binacolli
    50
    Some of the results are delightfully loopy. Some are cornball.
  4. Being touted as the first film ever shot in the Smithsonian complex. With any luck, it will also be the last. This is not the best use of our landmarks.
  5. Reviewed by: Dan Kois
    40
    The museum sparkles, but the movie is awfully dull.
  6. 20
    Even by Hollywood sequel standards, this is lazily conceived, cynically recycled stuff.

See all 31 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 42
  2. Negative: 10 out of 42
  1. Jan 11, 2015
    10
    A much better movie than its predecessor that brings all the great stuff from the first and adds even more! With an even better story than theA much better movie than its predecessor that brings all the great stuff from the first and adds even more! With an even better story than the last one, it's going to be hard to go back to the original after viewing this! Expand
  2. LarryB
    May 22, 2009
    9
    Funny, completely entertaining, worth the price of admission. Can't ait to own it on DVD. Ebert, time for you to pack it in!
  3. Feb 6, 2012
    7
    Better than the original. The movie decides to utilize even more effectively what made its predecessor so entertaining - exaggerated,Better than the original. The movie decides to utilize even more effectively what made its predecessor so entertaining - exaggerated, caricatured, amusingly overblown characters that don't take themselves seriously in the slightest. Expand
  4. Jun 9, 2013
    5
    To call this movie stupid is an understatement, but there is still enough wit to it to keep it going. There are several characters that areTo call this movie stupid is an understatement, but there is still enough wit to it to keep it going. There are several characters that are truly enjoyable, but the poor effects and childish script hinder it. Expand
  5. Jul 24, 2014
    4
    Quite common to see writers squeeze as much as they can into the sequel, resulting in an over-the-top mess, that fills up the box with ideasQuite common to see writers squeeze as much as they can into the sequel, resulting in an over-the-top mess, that fills up the box with ideas and historical references. The jokes are more corny, the acting is stale and lifeless, and the plot becomes more convoluted than the predecessor. I would only recommend this to someone maybe five-seven years old, or a man with the mind of a five or seven year old. Expand
  6. Apr 5, 2012
    4
    I am sorry, I just don't think is a fun movie. I am not expecting a marvellous comedy, but I just don't see anything here that makes me enjoyI am sorry, I just don't think is a fun movie. I am not expecting a marvellous comedy, but I just don't see anything here that makes me enjoy it. Not even the performances...for couldn't even finish watching it. Good for those who enjoy it, I am happy for them, but I am not one of them...am I charitable if I give this movie a 4? ...well, but I think it may be a 4, and perhaps even a 3... Expand
  7. TannerJ
    Jun 5, 2009
    0
    This movie is so awful! Boring, same story as the first one, way to long and not funny at all. If you can tell a movie is going to be bad 15 This movie is so awful! Boring, same story as the first one, way to long and not funny at all. If you can tell a movie is going to be bad 15 minutes in that is not a good sign. I wish I would have slept, like everyone else in my group did. Expand

See all 42 User Reviews

Related Articles

  1. All Films Considered: Ben Stiller

    All Films Considered: Ben Stiller Image
    Published: March 18, 2010
    The star of the new movie "Greenberg," Ben Stiller has been making audiences laugh -- some of the time -- for two decades. We look at the best and worst movies of his career to date.