I haven't enjoyed Mark Ruffalo since I saw him have sex with an old and rather hairy Meg Ryan in "In the Cut". Adrian Brody hasn't been spectacular since his award-winning performance in "The Pianist." And who can forget the adorable Rachel Weisz as an archeologist crusader in "The Mummy."
Synopsis: The Bloom brothers are the world's best con men, millionaires in their own right. But they're going to retire after one last job - taking a millionaire heiress around the world in a romantic adventure that ends up making them re-evaluate their lives.
A rental at best.
A sure sign of a struggling sequel is when you have to repeat jokes from the first film to help the audience remember why they went to see the first. Night at the Museum 2 is purely a kids film. It's fast-paced, slapstick and flashy. I can only think that a child would gain the most from watching Battle at the Smithsonian. This would seem obvious, but the first Night At The Museum had such a broad appeal it didn't feel like a kids flic. The historical puns in both 1 and 2 would also seem to suggest that only adolescents and adults would possess the requisite knowledge to truly enjoy the humour of an animated mannequin Amelia Earheart talking about her "successful" last flight. But I guess that's why they put some extra computer work into this one to garner the attention of the 8-13 demographic. From an adult perspective, the jokes are tired and the plot was pretty thin (even for this franchise) so unless your choices of comedies to watch are The Hangover, Land of the Lost or Night at the Museum 2, I guess I would have to suggest Night at the Museum 2.
Always be suspicious of films that plug its director on the poster in order to entice viewers. Just to clarify, this is not Old School. This movie has just helped lower the humour bar for 2009. It's only savings grace is that the comedies it's up against at the box office are equally, if not more so, terrible. Small consolation. The humour is forced, it's character development poor and the dialogue is banter. An example is the scene where the four men are driving down the highway on the way to Las Vegas and the bachelor party (about ten minutes into the film). Their discussion and jokes regarding marriage are so conventional, tired and recycled it could have been written by anyone. The irony is that you wouldn't even want to watch this film while hungover.
The first and last thirty seconds of Land of the Lost is funny, but that's about it. I didn't have high hopes for this film to begin. And after an hour and forty minutes, my suspicions were confirmed. This is almost as bad as Ferrell's last T.V show/movie-remake, Bewitched (2005). I understand the dinosaur graphics were supposed to be cheap, the humour campy and the premise and plot ridiculous, but it's a poorly delivered package. The comedy is reminiscent of the worst SNL skits, but with a multi-million dollar budget, which does nothing but emphasize how poor the dialogue and plot are once you quickly grow tired of the trite gags and laughs. I almost want to say this is as bad as the Flintstone movies, but I don't know how to be that cruel.
If you want to see actors running around and being chased on a green screen for almost two hours, it's still only worth a rental.
I know this came out three years ago, but some things take time to travel. If you want, you can purchase the DVD and enjoy it at home (which I recommend doing anyway), but if you love photography, or are a photographer yourself, you won't want to miss the opportunity of seeing a great selection of Leibovitz's iconic work on a large screen. It's also a good chance to see some celebs spout their "views and wisdom" if you're in to that kinda thing - like actually listening to celebrities. I joke.