Yes, any movie critic who can think deeply than others would understand "Night at the Museum 2" was a (obviously) unecessary sequel.

I found it more fun than the original. Yes, it's preposterous, but at the same time, very amusing. Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are great, and the scene between Johan Hill and Ben Stiller is a comic highlight. Gets a little too silly towards the end, and never really coalesces as a whole, but still, I was entertained.

I thought it was better then the first one and the "second base" joke was hilarious.

The movie was no way nearly as good as the first one, this seems to generally be the case for sequels. Special effects where really good. The movie had some funny scenes. The movies special effects carry it all the way to the end. I wouldn't see it again.

I enjoyed the last movie very much, I am sure this one is the same!! FUNNY!!!

Funny, completely entertaining, worth the price of admission. Can't ait to own it on DVD. Ebert, time for you to pack it in!

my children and i really enjoyed the first "museum" movie but this one is not worth the price of a ticket. It does have a few funny parts in it but the story is stupid and the movie is a sleeper. I would not even recommend renting this. Just a big waste of a nice Saturday.

Thoroughly enjoyable for an 18 year old, a 21 year old, and her parents.

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.

Disappointing, at the very start you can notice it doesn't has anything to do with the first one, You have at the end of de 1st a Stiller that loves his work and realizes that he has found what he was meant to do in life, and also he seems very happy about it. At the star of this one you realize the whole message of the 1st movie was a lie, Larry left his beloved wax friends for what he was supposed to had forgotten and not over.valued at the end of 1st... Very crappy film. Anyways it entertains, has awesome effects and jokes, hilarious at some pint. But then they abused of the Psy-Theraphy he had with Atila at the 1st, but in this one, he does it again n again n again, with every character he founds.… Expand

Because of the times, General Custer(Bill Hader) was far from being a friend of the Native Americans, but "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" subtly paints the cavalry commander during the Indian Wars as a Kevin Costner-type soldier straight out of "Dances with Wolves". When Custer tries to nail down the correct pronunciation for the name "Sacajawea"(Mizuo Peck), their benign alliance works like a response to the scene in the Costner-directed film where Kicking Bird(Graham Greene) mispronounces Dunbar as "dumb bear". While Custer's supporters allege that Arthur Penn's "Little Big Man" was a malicious and wrongheaded hatchet job on their man, whom they consider a hero, the Battle of the Smithsonian, in which Custer commandeers, is presented by the filmmaker as the general's chance at redemption, a scenario that some conservative ideologue like the late John Wayne would have certainly approved of. The second chance this new war affords him, in a sense, advocates genocide, because it forces the viewer to revisit the Battle of Little Big Horn as a squandered opportunity to spill more indigenous blood. Before he leads the charge against Kahmunrah(Hank Azaria), Custer waxes nostalgic about how poorly he performed at his last campaign. Contrary to the film's rhetoric, Kahmunrah is not a villain; he and his Egyptian cohorts are only defending their home, the Smithsonian Museum, against foreign invaders. Sound familiar?… Expand

Admittedly going in anticipating a clunker the first 25 minutes were painful to sit through from the artificial dialogue, extremely lame spy caper segments, and some awkwardly long amateurish humor (see Stiller's confrontation with a museum guard). Appreciatively, once Stiller gets into the museum (starting with opening the octopus crate) the movie starts to settle into something resembling the first movie. I.e. A movie based on a series of nonsensical special effects and action set pieces paired with innumerable gaps in storyline and reality that surprisingly still has the ability to provide some entertainment. So, if you liked the first... then its conceivable you'll enjoy this one. Just don't over analyze things like... why, ironically, does neither museum have any night guards?… Expand

I can't believe I shelled out $11 for this horrible film. I waited and waited for something funny to laugh at, but it never happened. The only funny moment was when Hank Azaria approached Darth Vader and that was shown in all the trailers so I already knew that was coming. Some of the special effects were good so I'm rating it a 2, otherwise it is worthless.

Much better than the first one, wittier and even more charming. Every single performance was a gem!

NatM: BotS is sort of a hodge-podge of CGI, historical references and comic vignettes stewed together and set to a screaming soundtrack and overwhelming Foley editing. Basically the result is exactly what you expect if you had a massive budget budget and no overriding storytelling goal. There are a few good bits and everything that's been said about Amy Adams is true. Wait for it on cable.

Did nobody notice the editing problem? Custer started off out in the warehouse. Then, he was locked inside the crate with the money and the tablet BEFORE the sun went down. Then, he was rescuing Larry Daley with the motor cycle and side car. Then, he was locked inside the crate again.

Rarely funny and never suspenseful. The script seemed like an afterthought. Ben Stiller needs to be careful. He is becoming associated with an alarming number of bad movies.

A lot sillier than the first. Hank Azaria does a good Boris Karloff accent, but that's IT. The stench of Money-Making Sequel hangs heavy.

I loved the special effects and the comedy was very funny. I am 15 and i enjoyed it very much.

I really liked the first movie, but I felt this one had a serious lack of central plot. The Earhart character was brilliant, as were several of the new comers, but I didn't feel the same connection I felt with the first movie(dead beat dad trying to redeem himself in his son's eyes) If you've seen the first movie, you owe it to yourself to watch this one, as one definite saving grace is there's what I felt was a better closure for the museum characters than in the first film. Go see this film, but don't expect it to be better than the first.… Expand

While not a terrible film, Night at the Museum 2 isn't as good as the original, as some much of it is wasted. Major plot points collapse with no real meaning, acting talent is wasted, and there are very few good jokes. Not the worst film ever, but it's hardly a nominee for best film ever either. South of average.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Not as good as the original because of the fact Robin Williams barely appeared in the movie. Despite that, everything else was great, especially Hank Azaria.… Expand

Not bad but quite good as well. Ben Stiller acted pretty well for the movie in my opinion.

While it wasn't the most perfect of films, it deserves to be recognised as an entertaining, family friendly treat which will certainly keep you amused. I found it hilarious and there was such a wide variety of characters which made it entirely more interesting. This film should be enjoyed particularly in the evening and at night, as that's when the film really does come alive. The atmosphere of this film is overwhelming and on the whole, very extraordinary in its nature.… Expand

It may seem like an unnecessary sequel, but it is still fun. It is bigger because of being at the Smithsonian museum area, which has a lot more that comes to life.

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.