Movie review: Special effects save 'Night at the Museum'
"Night at the Museum"
Rated PG
Now playing
** 1/2
THE PLOT: Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) is in desperate need of a job to stabilize his financial situation and convince his ex-wife that he can be trusted with their son, Nick.
The only job the employment agency offers him, however, is the position of night security guard at New York City's Museum of Natural History. Larry soon learns that, at night, history literally comes to life at the museum.
(Photo: Larry Daley, played by Ben Stiller, runs for his life in "Night at the Museum." Credit: Rhythm and Hues -- Twentieth Century Fox.)
THE ACTING: Most of the characters in this movie are too eccentric to be realistic, such as the feisty trio of elderly security guards and the clueless British museum director. But this is a movie in which you really have to step away from reality and just watch the action unfold.
The best acting is done by the big-name actors: Ben Stiller as the overwhelmed security guard and father, Owen Wilson as a whiny cowboy and Robin Williams as the eloquent Teddy Roosevelt.
Lesser-known Carla Gugino realistically portrays the role of the museum's resident history buff, while Jake Cherry seems out of place as Larry's son with his Bambi eyes, overly mature attitude and an intangible father-son connection.
However, the main focus of the movie is on the museum's varied characters, who do deliver their computer-animated and well-costumed parts extremely well.
THE SPECIAL EFFECTS: Let's be honest. Plot, acting and character development aren't the stars of this movie. The special effects rule here. They're astounding and provide plenty of laughs. There's a running, tail-wagging T-Rex skeleton, and an abundance of animated wax and plastic figurines -- ranging from incoherent Huns to maniacally mischievous monkeys to a gum-chewing Easter Island head.
Among the characters brought to life: mannequins, extinct and living animals, and legions and legions of tiny people. The sheer number and diversity of characters are the best part of the film.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Watch this movie in the theater if you love special effects and want a light-hearted break from your first weeks back at school. If not, wait for the DVD. Just be sure to watch the credits for some security guard boogeying.
-- Michelle Kang, St. Francis High, Mountain View
Errr
It's a kid's movie. You don't rate acting or plot development for a KID'S MOVIE. You write about how enjoyable it is (I enjoyed it), perhaps how original it is, and, if you're going to stretch it, how educational it is.
You go into the theatre and once the movie begins, you should notice that it's a kid's movie. You should brace your juvenile imagination and enjoy the laughs. You shouldn't expect the Godfather or Citizen Kane. -_-
The notion of a museum coming alive at night is novel. When I was a kid, I always got weirded out by wax figures.
This movie taught some history and how important it is...
Lord of the Rings had better animation. That was NOT a kid's movie.
6/10 for a kid's movie.
--- The only thing I hate more than a dumb person who thinks he is smart is a smart person who thinks he is dumb.
Hey Taishaku/Michael
Errr, I realized it was a kid's movie from the first time I watched the trailer for it. More mature flicks (except Jurassic Park, if you consider that too scary to be childish) usually don't feature animated T-Rexes.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the movie though. It took me some time to get rid of that nagging thought in my head ("Why are the people so boring?"), but as soon as I saw Mr. Easter Island Head, I couldn't help from laughing. Although I wanted to slap Dexter way before Stiller did.
And I actually consider Lord of the Rings an angsty adolescent movie, albeit with millions of dollars worth of special effects. And teenagers are still kids, after all. =P
I am still looking for the reason behind LotR's adult appeal. Could it be the noble clash between good and evil? Or the ever-charming Gollum? I find myself confounded.
Er
Lord of the Rings...what makes it good...
-Great storyline (Well... 2/3s of it anyways, just edit out Sam and Frodo)
-Everything is on an epic scale, from midgets to elephants
-Lots of dead people
-Lots of undead people
-Lots of gore and violence (without the sex and rock and roll)
-Great soundtrack
-Alot of special effects
-That struggle between good and evil or whatever you were talking about
Most important reason? Well, it's generational...the thing is, teens these days don't read Lord of the Rings, so they don't know what to except. Instead of luring them to the theater with the book's name (which most kids read AFTER the movie), they used alot of trailers with endless hordes clashing and Orlando Bloom (for the ladies). Nobody will even notice the fact that elves were never at Helm's Deep or they skipped out on the real ending (Scourge of the Shire) and substituted 5 crappy ones. The adults, on the other hand, mostly have read LotR (it was tha shiz back then) and want to see the movie.
It's the same reason why nobody batted at eye at the inaccuracies of the Earthsea movie (very very very bad) or Starship Troopers (too much violence, gore, sex, and rock and roll), etc etc.
Lol. Funny, everyone knows my name.
--- The only thing I hate more than a dumb person who thinks he is smart is a smart person who thinks he is dumb.

Right on the money
I already watched this movie earlier and I totally agree with you. The plot of this movie was too simple and the acting was not great. Without the special effects, this movie probably would have bombed at the box office. However, I felt good at the end of the movie. If I had read your review earlier, I probably would have waited for the DVD.