Should we spend a 2nd NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM? Alex has the answer...
In her 1974 review of The Godfather II the influential film critic Pauline Kael stated that the only two sequels ever to improve on their predecessors were Huckleberry Finn and the New Testament. Since then films such as The Empire Strikes Back or Evil Dead 2 have belied the theory that follow-ups are never much good. Then we get something like Night At The Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian and its back to square one. 
Against all odds the first Night At The Museum, released in 2006, was a fairly entertaining and funny adventure comedy. (Matt completely disagrees... his review from 17.12.06 being one of the earliest he wrote, calling it "enjoyable for 20 mintues, but goes flat really quickly, with a script that seems to have been churned out by a scriptwriting 101 manual"). The first Night at the Museum tells the tale of divorced father Larry Daley (Ben Stiller), an aspiring inventor/businessman whose failure to hold a steady job has led to serial disappointment for his son Nick (Jake Cherry). In order to win the kid over and prevent him from turning into a miniature version of his repellent stepfather Don (Paul Rudd), Larry becomes a night guard at New Yorks Natural History Museum. As chance would have it this is a place where all kinds of weird shit happens when the exhibits come to life after sundown. This quaint premise was pulled off in the original due to a tight script, a leading man who was totally in his element and the supporting casts combination of old American and relatively young English comic talent (Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney for the Yanks; Ricky Gervais and the genius that is Steve Coogan for the Brits). With these assets it managed to forge an outlandish yet workable mythology for itself. Unfortunately, Night At The Museum 2 makes no effort to carve out its own identity within that mythology and is content to settle for a bigger, better rehash of the original item. In order to achieve this broader canvas director Shawn Levy and writer Thomas Lennon move the action to Washingtons vast Smithsonian museum complex. The Natural History Museum is going hi-tech and with the arrival of interactive holograms there is no longer any need for mannequins and the like, so the non-essential exhibits are packed up and sent to be stored in the Smithsonians Federal Archives. Luckily for cinema-going families the world over, the Egyptian Tablet which is responsible for breathing consciousness into any and all convenient inanimate objects is also part of the package. Historically-themed mayhem is unleashed anew and Larry is at hand to help his exhibit pals and save the day. Despite this upping of the stakes, Battle of the Smithsonian lacks several essential elements which might have made it a worthy successor. Larrys main antagonist throughout his second adventure is the revivified Egyptian prince Kahmunrah, played with such campy pantomime exuberance by Hank Azaria that the character never comes across as much of a threat at all. The romantic interest is the mannequin of aviation pioneer Aemilia Earheart (Amy Adams). The fact that she is both a sexy daredevil and a non-human obviously caused headaches at the development stage, because after some dilly-dallying the filmmakers eventually decide that lasting man-mannequin love is definitely taboo. Stiller, for his part, seems to be going through the motions, perhaps because his character has a less powerful goal for the audience to engage with here. Not that the movie doesnt have its moments. I admit that it made me laugh out loud on several occasions, which is more than can be said for a number of comedies I have been to see lately. Steve Coogans character, a miniature Roman general, is involved in a couple of scenes which reference/satirise movies like Honey, I Shrunk The Kids and 300 to good comic effect. There is also a rather funny cameo by Superbads Jonah Hill which could and should have led to a more extended role. And while not top of the range, the films CGI effects get the job done. When all is said and done, however, the whole affair is probably best summed-up in the immortal words of Robert de Niro: It is what it is. Nobody was expecting a mind-bending, life-changing experience, but a little more originality and attention to basics wouldnt have hurt. Still, if youve got kids and you want to keep them quiet for 105 minutes (no mean feat) you might want to take them along to the local multiplex for this. Youll certainly survive it without falling into boredom-induced catatonia and might even mildly enjoy it. Just dont expect it to give the reputation of sequels much of a helping hand.