JamesG
05-22-2009, 03:50 PM
Movie Reviews: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
22 May 2009 2:20 AM, PDT
The first blockbusters of the season may be selling a lot of tickets, but with the arguable exception of Star Trek, they are not faring well with critics. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is no exception.
Even Roger Ebert, who has been relatively kind to most of the films released during the past month, admits that "it rubbed me the wrong way." He goes on: "Oh, 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, its cost incalculable (well, $150 million)."
One of the better reviews is A.O. Scott's in the New York Times, who describes it as a "shallow and harmlessly diverting picture."
But Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal admits that it is more or less pointless even bothering to appraise the movie, which he says, "is critic proof; nothing I might saw would have the slightest effect on its commercial fate. That leaves me free to marvel at the movie's cheerful idiocy ... and at the efficiency with which the filmmakers have dumbed down a dumb premise of proven success."
And writing for the Washington Post, Dan Kois delights in being able "to praise a beloved local fixture making a grand Hollywood debut." His verdict: "The museum sparkles, but the movie's awfully dull."
-IMDB News
22 May 2009 2:20 AM, PDT
The first blockbusters of the season may be selling a lot of tickets, but with the arguable exception of Star Trek, they are not faring well with critics. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is no exception.
Even Roger Ebert, who has been relatively kind to most of the films released during the past month, admits that "it rubbed me the wrong way." He goes on: "Oh, 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, its cost incalculable (well, $150 million)."
One of the better reviews is A.O. Scott's in the New York Times, who describes it as a "shallow and harmlessly diverting picture."
But Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal admits that it is more or less pointless even bothering to appraise the movie, which he says, "is critic proof; nothing I might saw would have the slightest effect on its commercial fate. That leaves me free to marvel at the movie's cheerful idiocy ... and at the efficiency with which the filmmakers have dumbed down a dumb premise of proven success."
And writing for the Washington Post, Dan Kois delights in being able "to praise a beloved local fixture making a grand Hollywood debut." His verdict: "The museum sparkles, but the movie's awfully dull."
-IMDB News