Full Reviews : Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

[HorrorMaster]

Before I start this review I want to get one thing abundantly clear. I did not willingly go to see "Night at the Museum: Battle For the Smithsonian". Not once in my life, nor will I ever for the rest of my life, ever, ever, ever willingly go to see a movie like this. I just need to know that whoever is reading this is aware of this, because being labelled as someone who might actually, you know, watch a movie like "Night of the Museum: Battle For the Smithsonian" would actually be 61.8079 times worse than dying. I was forced against my will to go and see this movie with a relative, and because they were paying for my ticket it would have been wrong to say, "no". It would have been rude, but if I knew the movie was going to be this bad I might have actually just said no to their face.

To call this movie unfunny and immature would actually insult the nature of immaturity itself. To call it poorly-executed would be like calling the girl in "Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan" who tries to hide from Jason on the boat and gets impaled the most realistic actor the horror genre has ever seen. You know, it doesn't actually bother me that much that the "humour" is immature and aimed at really young kids. I have seen a lot of immature movies in my time; some movies actually have the power to make immaturity seem funny, eg. the "Scary Movie" series. It's just the fact that this film is so lazy, incompetent, messy, atrociously-executed, poorly-made, inept and manipulative that it's just plain disrespectful to the audience and that pissed me off enough to give it a grade of 7/100, exceptionally low for my ranking standards.

I just sat there, for about two hours, staring at the screen and the only thing I was interested in thinking about was how, and why, movie theatres project the movie image at 50fps as oppose to the 100 and 120fps you see in most LCD screens. A still shot of a brick wall would have been more entertaining and productive. Counting the bricks in the brick wall was funner than anything in the movie. This is the kind of motion picture I would not even wipe my ass with due to fear of catching whatever brain-cell destroying syndrome it has buried within the film master.

One good thing did come out of it, however. Because of this movie, I am now 100% fully faithful that I am not going to a movie theatre again until I am an adult. This was already my stance on the matter, but seeing this movie was just a big, painful, but important, reminder of how much it sucks. Not only because every single time I go there I see people I used to know from my school - and hate with a roaring passion - not just because there are bogans and I fear for my safety, not just because it takes so long to get in, not just because it costs a fucking ridiculous amount just to watch a movie, not just because there's often one hundred or more people there. But because worthless and degrading cinematic abortions like "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" are being passed off as childrens' entertainment nowadays.

Oh, but "hang on," some of you are saying (in my head). "Aren't you like fourteen or something....fifteen....this movie wasn't designed for you." No, it wasn't designed for me, but only because I'm not mentally retard and/or a blob of clay/putty. I love a good childrens' film; "The Lion King" (1994) is my fifth favourite motion picture of all time, so I obviously like what childrens' films can deliver. They don't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They don't have to be dumb. Most people don't seem to realise this, but childrens' films can - and should try to be - intelligent. A movie can appeal perfectly to children and adults alike without there being any interference.

But then I look at the state of modern mainstream Hollywood cinema and sigh for the state of the universe. Thank you, "Night of the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian", you have just been one big, bloated, obnoxious reminder of why I don't go to see movies anymore. It's not reasonable that something this lazy and spiritually inept is given funding and being produced and released to certified human beings.

7

[epiphany]

How large is the screen of your television at home?

I too dislike cinema patrons, though probably not to a similar extent as you, but try my best to see decent movies in theatres whenever possible. I do not know about others, but I am completely incapable of resisting the size and quality of two floor cinema screens.

Next Saturday, Alice in the Cities is playing somewhere near me. Even though I have not seen a single Wim Wenders film nor know anything about the film, I am going just for the cinematic experience.

[HorrorMaster]

How large is the screen of your television at home?

40 inches wide. From where I am, the eye-to-screen ratio is basically the same as watching it in a theatre, except without the whining babies.

[epiphany]

40 inches wide or 40 inches diagonal?

I don't think I sit nearly close enough to my television to have a similar to eye-to-screen ratio.

[HorrorMaster]

40 inches wide or 40 inches diagonal?

Gawd knows. The shop I bought it at measures the televisions in inches, so thinking about it now 40" wide is probably a lot bigger than I think my television is so you're probably right, I'd say it's 40" diagonal. Size is not important to me though, it's all about the visual presentation; my television is HD and runs at 100 frames-per-second, an almost life-like speed (120 is life-like) which is much more visually appealing than anything that can be shown from a projector as I have experienced - especially since the 50 frames-per-second utilised in theatres looks really jerky and unnatural to me and makes my eyes a bit sore.

[Melvin Smif]

Did the statue say I'm thinking alot...I hope so.

[Luna6ix]

i pretty much enjoy every kids movie to get a nation wide release, and personally i get bored with the lion king every time i see it, but that's probably because you grew up with it from infancy, whereas i was eight when it came out so i kinda dig the little mermaid more.

EDIT: saw it last night, i have to say, it's not an instant classic, but it's not the bane of existance that you describe it to be.

[pilgermann]

I'm pretty sure that the film wasn't running at 50 FPS in the theater. Your everyday 35mm film is typically shown at 24 fps, while a 70mm IMAX film would be 48 fps. Home video and TV are different stories, though, that's when you get 25 (PAL) and 29.97 (NTSC) and whatnot.

Sorry, this isn't terribly important but I just wanted to clarify a bit.