The makers of Night at the Museum could
benefit from some magic Egyptian tablets of their own to bring
the film to life. There's certainly nothing in the movie itself
that's anything but a stiff replica of a film. This Ben Stiller
vehicle holds little for audiences seeking an enjoyable experience
for all ages.
As far as plot goes, Museum is almost
as bare as the bones on playful old T-Rex. It's yet another
clichéd family film about an absent father overcoming
potential obsolescence when a "better" father figure
comes into his son's life. We've seen it many times and this
is by no means one of the better of the archetype. After the
sun rises each morning, ending the chaos of the night Stiller
has overcome, the dramatic arc feels complete, but we are subjected
to night after night, with only a flimsy overarching plot to
keep the movie together as a whole. The film might be more successful
if they had condensed all the adventures into the first night,
instead of dragging everything out and merely varying the same
events time and again. The other possible remedy to the film's
flaws would be to provide the sense of wonder one would expect
from a history museum full of living displays. In reality, everything
is a depicted as a nuisance, so why would the audience be anything
but annoyed? For a film like this, I want to see magic!
Joke repetition is one of the major problems with
Night. It's hard to find a single joke in the movie
that wasn't either used too many times or didn't go on too long,
including the premise of the film itself. Children will enjoy
the repetition, but any adult will be unable to stand it by
the end of the film. Older audience members may also be annoyed
by the constant attempts to make the events in the museum, and
the consequences of disaster seem more ominous, especially at
the beginning of the film, which don't heighten suspense, but
rather increase the sense of stupidity exuding from the screen.
Stiller himself provides us nothing we haven't
seen from him ad nauseam, delivering the same characterizations
and expressions he has for years. Someone coming into the film
in the middle might wonder why Gaylord Focker is in a science
museum, or what Derek Zoolander is doing wearing such an unfashionable
uniform. It would perhaps be more fitting for co-star Robin
Williams to switch places with Stiller, since he has been doing
slapstick family farces for years and this would fit nicely
in his resume between Mrs. Doubtfire, Jumanji
and his recent outing, RV. The supporting cast is somewhat
better, but aren't allowed to carry the weight which is obviously
too burdensome for Stiller. Ricky Gervais is the highlight as
the controlling boss who can't complete a sentence. It's a shame
he's only in a few scenes. Stiller's frequent partner-in-crime
owen Wilson is slightly disappointing, essentially reprising
his role in Shanghai Noon, only in miniature. Dick
Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney are also a fun addition, though Rooney
does come across almost as jabbery as the villainous monkey.
I'm sure that children will love this movie, especially
any interested in history or fans of the museum. The fanciful
elements are geared toward a young audience, as are the jokes.
I like my family movies to have multiple layers of depth, though,
and this certainly doesn't, so anyone expecting to have adult
jokes to laugh at as well won't be so lucky. I hope the film
has the same effect on the Natural History Museum as the living
inhabitants do in the film, and that it reaps the benefit of
the publicity. At least then the film might have been worth
it.
