Museum exhibits that come to life, Kris Kristofferson as a time traveler?! This is... Oh, wait! Seriously?! We're doing ANOTHER movie about time travel?! Oh, son of a...
*theme song plays*
Hello, and welcome to "Movie Night", your one-stop shop for all of your time-traveling needs! Hi, my name is Jonathan Paula. Our first movie tonight is "Night at the Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian."
Released on May 22nd of this year, it is the sequel to the very highly successful blockbuster hit of 2006. Starring Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Hank Azaria, Amy Adams, and a huge ensemble cast, this movie has EVERYBODY in it.
In the first movie, our protagonist Larry Daley, played by Ben Stiller, becomes the night watchman at New York's natural history museum, where the exhibits literally come alive at night.
Fast forward a couple of years for the plot of the sequel, and we find that Larry's old museum pals are being shipped away to live in storage underneath the National Mall in the Smithsonian Museum Archives.
Larry has to travel to Washington DC and do battle with the quick-talking and goofy pharoah Kahmunrah, played brilliantly by Hank Azaria, for the mystical golden tablet that brings all of the exhibits to life.
I hadn't seen the original until yesterday, so watching both movies back to back was a real treat. Ben Stiller is refreshing in pretty much the only role he's able to play well- the slapstick hero with a heart of gold.
Although dreadfully underused, every member of the supporting cast does their share of bringing in the laughs.
Having nearly every actor from the original movie reprising their role in this bigger and more adventurous sequel is always a great recipe for a successful movie.
The characters' developments from the previous film felt organic, and the new problems presented in this sequel didn't feel like the usual Hollywood money-grubbing like we've seen in so many other franchises.
I felt that bringing the action of the Smithsonian was a great concept, allowing for many fun and exciting character additions, and as this is a family movie, I think the strategy worked wonderfully.
The action is nearly non-stop throughout the film, with a playful, lighthearted tone, keeping everything kid-friendly for the 105-minute run time.
Unlike the first film, Stiller was very smartly cast opposite Amy Adams as the female romantic lead in this film, and she really shines through above the rest of the cast.
This romantic subplot gives the movie a nice foundation that I felt the first movie kind of lacked. To be honest, I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie too much, but I genuinely laughed and smiled more than a few times while watching this movie...
...Which can best be described as the ultimate kids' fantasy. I especially loved how the film brought to life several famous American paintings. It's an interesting and fun scene that you can't help but smile at.
Obviously, this movie's large ensemble cast is where it really shines, but I couldn't help but feel this is also where the movie failed.
Many of the characters, especially the trio of villains who Kahmunrah enlists to help him retrieve the tablet, seemed woefully underdeveloped and poorly utilized in this film, only getting a few lines each.
There were several scenes where characters were haphazardly introduced just to deliver a single joke, and then, it seems that they were forgotten about for the rest of the film.
This is in contrast to the original movie, where I felt the core cast of characters meshed very well with each other.
On a related note, sadly, Robin Williams, who was easily the most memorable character from the first film, is mostly absent from this sequel, making only minor appearances to open and close out the plot.
So, it was a very fun and friendly family comedy that I think complimented the original film very nicely. But let's see what you guys had to say about "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian."
Jon: BenPalm1 wrote... (reads BenPalm1's comment)
Jon: DanM966 wrote... (reads DanM966's comment)
Jon: EvilTTLimp wrote... (reads EvilTTLimp's comment)
Alright, well, I got some complaints last week for changing up the Rate-o-Matic on you, so we're returning to the old format. Now, the Rate-o-Matic will reflect the collective score between what you and me think of a movie.
Now, the reviews on this movie were definitely mixed, but I think that most of you agreed that this an above-average film. And the score, a "7", definitely reflects that. You guys thought it was a "cool" movie.
I personally might have given it a "6", maybe a "7." I think it's pretty much where it should be. Our second movie tonight is the 1989 science-fiction film starring Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd.
"Millennium" starts off very strong, with perhaps one of the coolest concepts I've ever heard of in a sci-fi film. Kris Kristofferson plays Bill Smith, an ordinary guy with a boring name who is also an NTSB plane crash investigator.
After one crash, he slowly starts to figure out a very troubling mystery unfolding, involving the future and infertility.
Cheryl Ladd plays opposite Kris Kristofferson as Louise Baltimore, a woman from the future who travels back in time on board doomed aircraft midflight, to steal all of the passengers off the plane and bring them to the future before their planes crash.
Their bodies are replaced with pre-burned replicas. Baltimore and her coworkers are from 1000 years in the future and are unable to reproduce.
So naturally, their solution is to steal men and women from 1989 and force them to breed with each other in their crumbling dystopian future.
In a really clever plot point, all of the characters from the future must constantly smoke cigarettes while traveling back to the 1980s, because they're accustomed to the polluted air, and apparently, the air quality in 1989 is just too clean for them.
As I said, in concept, this movie is incrediblly strong, with the science-fiction aspects of time travel and paradox very well explained and well explored. Unfortunately, the movie fails at just about every other category.
For one, Kristofferson is bland, boring, and uninspiring as the lead, who really just seems cranky for most of the movie. The character motivations are also highly suspect.
At one point, Baltimore travels back in time in an attempt to distract Smith from discovering more about her body-snatching airplane plan.
Her method of distraction? Have a one-night stand with him! I don't know about you guys, but I signed on to this movie to see, like, a cool 80s' "B" movie about time travel. I did not want to see Kris Kristofferson have sex with a Charlie's Angel!
No thanks! Besides this really bad romance plot that never felt right at all, I also had issue with the film's abysmal portrayal of the future. I mean, come on now- are we really meant to believe that 1989's perception of the future is 1987?!
I swear to God in one scene I saw Madonna walk by! Halfway through the film, the narrative focus shifts to that of Baltimore, as we follow her side of the story.
And for some reason, the director finds it necessary to literally show the entire first half of the film AGAIN, from different camera angles.
I mean, yes, now that we know what's really going on, watching the earlier scenes in the film again from Baltimore's perspective helps us better understand the plot and the time travel aspects.
But seriously- nearly 45 minutes of this film are shown twice! It's just bad writing and entirely inexcusable. But on a lighter note, this is certainly one of those "so-bad-it's-good" sci-fi movies.
At one point towards the end of the film, when the characters start to dick around with the temporal paradoxes, the computer consoles in the future start exploding and killing people.
Right... So, you're saying that, if I go back in time to kill my grandfather, a computer console in 2989 is going to just burst into flames?! Somehow, I don't see that happening!
Anyway, here's what you guys thought of "Millennium."
Jon: DeanBearSyr wrote... (reads DeanBearSyr's comment)
Jon: ChainsawDoctor wrote... (reads ChainsawDoctor's comment)
Jon: S13AR10 wrote... (reads S13AR10's comment)
Now, personally, I enjoyed this film just enough for it to be, at the very least, a passable "B" movie, maybe scoring a "3" on my personal scale.
But wow! You guys voted overwhelmingly negative for "Millennium", leaving it with a whopping score of "garbage"! Not many of you actually voted, because I don't think many of you have seen this movie, but those who did vote?
36% gave it a "1" on the Rate-o-Matic! Worst score ever! Anyway, now it's time for tonight's Tweet Critique.
Jon: DisneyXDTheChar Tweeted... (reads DisneyXDTheChar's Tweet)
Jon: RyanAustinF Tweeted... (reads RyanAustinF's Tweet)
Jon: StarWoodFox Tweeted... (reads StarWoodFox's Tweet)
If you have a Tweet Critique you'd like to see on "Movie Night", all you have to do is review a recently released movie that we haven't talked about on the show and add the #JPMN hashtag to your Tweet.
I'll go through them before next episode and pick out my favorites. That does it for tonight's episode of "Movie Night." So now, let's take a look at the movies we'll be reviewing for next week.
"Julie and Julia" and "Public Enemies" are both brand-new on DVD; both were released yesterday. So, I hope you get a chance to buy, rent, or download them before next week.
Once again, my name is Jonathan Paula. Thank you for joining me, and have a good night.
*end credits play*