Hello Poppers! Welcome to a special blog edition of Popcorn! Instead of a podcast, we decided to do a written chat review of the movie Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb. As always, we will try to keep the spoilers to a minimum. Plus as an added bonus we will be talking about other Hollywood franchises that seem to have taken a dive into the absurd.
Lulubell: This latest Night at the Museum is the third movie in this series, probably because of that, I went into it very skeptical. Would it be good? Would it be bad? Well, it turns out I was sadly disappointed. I liked the first one. It felt fresh and new and it was entertaining to watch. Gah!!! Why must Hollywood keep churning out sequels that just don’t live up to the first one?!!!
Kaely: I was reluctant to see this film too, but after so many heavy, deep, CGI-packed movies I was ready for something light. But I do like substance to my fluff and Night at the Museum just didn’t cut it for me. And that’s a bummer because like you, I really enjoyed the first film.
Lulubell: This latest Night at the Museum is the third movie in this series, probably because of that, I went into it very skeptical. Would it be good? Would it be bad? Well, it turns out I was sadly disappointed. I liked the first one. It felt fresh and new and it was entertaining to watch. Gah!!! Why must Hollywood keep churning out sequels that just don’t live up to the first one?!!!
Kaely: I was reluctant to see this film too, but after so many heavy, deep, CGI-packed movies I was ready for something light. But I do like substance to my fluff and Night at the Museum just didn’t cut it for me. And that’s a bummer because like you, I really enjoyed the first film.
Lulubell: Yeah, it seemed like this time around everyone looked tired or reluctant to be there. Especially Ben Stiller who seemed to have phoned in his performance.
Kaely: The only performance I really paid attention to was Robin Williams. This was his last film and I was just so eager to see him. But of course his character, Teddy Roosevelt, is only a side character with barely any screen time. Of course this movie wasn’t about him at all so walking in with the expectation to see something amazing from him just wasn’t going to happen.
The rest of the acting...it was just clownish. Whereas in the first movie the absurdity worked. It failed to get my attention this time.
Lulubell: I feel the same way. The same gimmicks were worn and old. There was nothing lively about the movie at all, and despite Robin Williams' small role, he made it work. He was the only one who appeared to give it his all. The actor who played Lancelot seemed to have fun with it too, but the two of them weren’t enough to make the movie float.
Kaely: I can agree with that. Although I will point out that I really enjoyed Ben Stiller playing off of himself, as it were. The caveman, La, was just ridiculous but new. At least I found it funny. Those were the parts I laughed at the most. I particularly enjoyed the scene where they get locked together in the staff lounge and La mimics Larry.
Kaely: The only performance I really paid attention to was Robin Williams. This was his last film and I was just so eager to see him. But of course his character, Teddy Roosevelt, is only a side character with barely any screen time. Of course this movie wasn’t about him at all so walking in with the expectation to see something amazing from him just wasn’t going to happen.
The rest of the acting...it was just clownish. Whereas in the first movie the absurdity worked. It failed to get my attention this time.
Lulubell: I feel the same way. The same gimmicks were worn and old. There was nothing lively about the movie at all, and despite Robin Williams' small role, he made it work. He was the only one who appeared to give it his all. The actor who played Lancelot seemed to have fun with it too, but the two of them weren’t enough to make the movie float.
Kaely: I can agree with that. Although I will point out that I really enjoyed Ben Stiller playing off of himself, as it were. The caveman, La, was just ridiculous but new. At least I found it funny. Those were the parts I laughed at the most. I particularly enjoyed the scene where they get locked together in the staff lounge and La mimics Larry.
Lulubell: That was entertaining to watch. The other scene they had together where Larry is trying to get La to stand by the door but they keep going back and forth is pretty funny.
Kaely: Yeah, that was pretty classic physical comedy, but it worked.
Lulubell: One thing I really really liked was the cameo by Hugh Jackman. I’m biased though I love him. So I would love anything he was in. Even if it was just two minutes.
Kaely: Oh my gosh, yes! That was just pure movie fun. And the fact that he was poking fun at himself with his whole Wolverine bit. I loved that! But those moments were so few and far between. I just couldn’t really by into this film at all. I guess if I was a kid I’d eat it up; but discerning children would probably give it a thumbs down.
Lulubell: Yeah, I agree. It seemed like the writers, director, and producers expected everyone to basically turn off their brain while watching it, because it doesn’t work otherwise. Speaking of, this isn’t the only franchise that has kinda jumped the shark. Any come to mind?
Kaely: Gosh! There’s so many! For me a franchise that needs to die is Spiderman. Now I know Spiderman has got his supporters and that’s great, but his franchise just doesn’t hold a candle to the other superhero movies. In the last film, where he had to battle no less than three baddies was just too ridiculous, even for the superhero world. And I have nothing against the performers, but it just feels like the creators are picking up a dead animal, re-stuffing it, putting some new sparkly bows on it, and then say, “Well--whaddya think? You love it, right? Right??”
Lulubell: I completely agree. I think the worst thing they did to the Spiderman story is reboot it. It was completely unnecessary and now its all....gosh I can’t describe it. I just don't like it.
Kaely: It’s hard to compete with the other superhero movies like Iron Man, like Thor, etc...for some reason people just are eating Spiderman. For me personally, I don’t even care for his character. I much prefer the heavily flawed Iron Man to the outcast Spiderman.
Lulubell: I think Iron Man has got to watch out. It is diving into sticky territory. I personally didn’t really enjoy the second. The third was much better, but they are seriously going overboard with some of the story. It feels like they are trying to pack in too much and make it ultra fantastic. I hope that the Iron Man franchise, with him alone, ends on a good note and not a low one.
Kaely: I actually enjoyed the third one more than the second. But there is a point where a story does need to end. And that’s the problem with a lot of these Hollywood blockbusters, is that they keep squeezing and squeezing and squeezing a character/story until there is really nothing left. It’s like trying to get that last bit of toothpaste out of the tube. It’s really not worth it. Get something new.
Lulubell: Exactly! For example, Taken. I really liked that first movie. It is the perfect stand-alone movie. New story, great cast. It just felt fresh. Now there’s a third coming out! Seriously! Why must you ruin good stories!!!
Kaely: Ha! I can’t help but think that Liam Neson’s character needs to keep better track of his stuff/family. It keeps getting taken!
Lulubell: Pwahaha!
Kaely: But apparently, and feel free to correct me on this, but the studios who own the rights to these different franchises have to produce movies in said franchises in order to keep those rights. If they don’t they lose them. So there is pressure to produce something, even if it is a flop. And this could explain why we are in such a huge phenomena of sequels and fast-food franchise meals.
Lulubell: I didn’t know that was the case. I can see that they would be very keen on keeping the rights to it and therefore go to these lengths to do it. Still, I feel that the important thing should be quality rather than grasping at straws to keep the story.
Kaely: I couldn’t agree more. But the real tragedy, in my opinion, is that means new stories are pushed to the wayside. Films that aren’t established are considered riskier and the studios are less inclined to make something they can’t predict will be a money-maker.
Lulubell: That really breaks my heart. I fear that pretty soon there won’t be any new material out there. Or that any new material will be considered “indie” or “art house” and it won’t receive wide releases or get seen by more people and then those great stories will be lost. Kaely: And that’s scary. But going back to Night at the Museum, it’s textbook style of studios beating a dead horse. The first film can be considered a risk, and it’s success was so huge that they instantly decided to carry it on--at the expense of good story. At this point, it’s time to put the Museum to bed.
Lulubell: I couldn’t agree more. I think that studios should start accepting the idea that some stories are just meant to be stand-alone. There’s no need to elongate anything. I just hope our pleas are heard. Still, that’s not going to happen soon as there are many sequels coming out later this year and we will be watching them I’m sure. Haha.