Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: May 22, 2009
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 175 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
54
Mixed:
91
Negative:
30
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
EssenceOfSugarJul 22, 2012
Sometimes I wonder why I bothered watching this film again. You cannot possibly take this film seriously because this is not supposed to be serious. But neither was it fun. In fact, I don't think it had any redeeming features. There's notSometimes I wonder why I bothered watching this film again. You cannot possibly take this film seriously because this is not supposed to be serious. But neither was it fun. In fact, I don't think it had any redeeming features. There's not actually many funny jokes and as much as it tried, nothing seemed to make this look good. Stiller's performance is just forgettable - he doesn't do anything interesting - and Azaria's performance was the only mildly entertaining thing on screen despite the range of colourful historical characters available, who I don't think even did anything as I recall. The second time I watched it, I barely kept my eyes on the screen and thought about what else I could be doing instead of this. Seems like a pretty childish waste of effort. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
0
csw12Sep 1, 2012
Even for Ben Stiller this is a total embarrassment. Why the hell would you want to be part of this idiotic film. Also shame on Amy Adams for completely lowering her standards for films. The movie made me sick to my stomach.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
KirkCJun 8, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
markpJun 15, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TannerJJun 5, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChadSMay 24, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JamesHMay 29, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DaveBMay 23, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DennisLMay 27, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RayzorMooseNov 16, 2013
Night at the Museum gets sleepy.
The movie picks up nicely where the last let off. The new characters are surprisingly successful, and the story is okay. The movie then gets slothfully sloppy at the end at its struggles to piece together a
Night at the Museum gets sleepy.
The movie picks up nicely where the last let off. The new characters are surprisingly successful, and the story is okay. The movie then gets slothfully sloppy at the end at its struggles to piece together a resolution. Many very fixable plot holes erupt and the entire film nearly unravels.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
ErikTheCriticOct 11, 2018
A really bland and silly sequel to its pretty enjoyable predecessor. Its filled to the brim with lame, dull jokes and a surprisingly boring plot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews