- Studio: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
- Release Date: May 22, 2009
- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
83Battle of the Smithsonian has plenty of life. But it's Adams who gives it zing.
-
75Nothing elegant about Adams here, but she's terrific -- a sparkling screen presence. Her Earhart hoists this big-budget sequel above the routine.
-
75Takes a great idea -- what if the inhabitants of a museum came to life at night? -- and milks it for every drop of fun it's worth.
-
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.
-
60Some of that frenetic running around has been replaced by inspired effects sequences and amusing riffs by the talented cast, especially new arrivals Hank Azaria and Amy Adams.
-
60Far surpasses original.
-
60It's funnier this time, but still veers noticeably from kid-friendly slapstick to adult-friendly banter.
-
60Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is what my mother would have called a kakabarly--a large, foaming broth into which she emptied the forlorn and highly miscellaneous contents of her icebox.
-
58Your 12-and-unders will dig it, and it might even serve as a sort of movie-Bookmobile and get them to read a little history, or at least a little Wikipedia. But otherwise it's utterly dispensable.
-
50The problem with NATM:BOTS is that Stiller, Adams, and company seem to be pretending that they're having fun, too.
-
Some of the results are delightfully loopy. Some are cornball.
-
50Without Azaria's comedic gifts, the movie would be close to unendurable.
-
50Resembles an enthusiastic but undisciplined child running amok through an exhibit.
-
50It's harmless. And pointless. And dumb. This is a perfect example of a motion picture that exists exclusively because its predecessor made a lot of money.
-
Unfortunately, once these creatures do come to life for a second outing, the promise soon evaporates and the clever comedy, built largely on crisscrossing anachronisms and various sly cultural references, is not enough to sustain a romp that is all rather predictable.
-
50Shallow and harmlessly diverting picture.
-
50Where the original had a vaguely tenable narrative hook (deadbeat dad finds redemption through nocturnal heroics), the new pic seems purely a vehicle for lavish visuals and cheap gags.
-
50Beware of idiocy's charms.
-
42Being 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.
-
It's not so much a movie as a series of running antiquity gags, good for a comedy club, not so much for the multiplex.
-
The museum sparkles, but the movie is awfully dull.
-
40Bloated with visual effects, this sequel to the 2006 hit starts off slowly, reintroducing the original characters.
-
38The money shots of the living tableau are padded with jokes that feel embalmed before the actors get them out of their mouths.
-
38Oh, did I dislike this film. It made me squirm. Its premise is lame, its plot relentlessly predictable, its characters with personalities that would distinguish picture books.
-
38It's bigger, noisier, shinier, and dumber, and it has no earthly reason to exist.
-
25Even Ben Stiller looks bored out of his mind in Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, and he got paid several million dollars to star in it.
-
25Seems to go on for several days and nights, though in fact it lasts just 105 minutes. I checked my watch. A lot.
-
25Feels like a re-hash.
-
25It's a busier and less coherent film, too, with a baffling master plot and a crowded pileup of special effects in search of something to do.
-
20Even by Hollywood sequel standards, this is lazily conceived, cynically recycled stuff.
-
20Shamlessly dumb movie.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 16 out of 28
-
Mixed: 5 out of 28
-
Negative: 7 out of 28
-
Lighten up people, It's meant to be a fun movie. That's just what people don't understand. Some movies are fun and not meant to be taken seriously.
-
Yes, any movie critic who can think deeply than others would understand "Night at the Museum 2" was a (obviously) unecessary sequel.
-
4