I'll admit it. I did borrow a friend's kid so it wouldn't seem weird that I was at a Saturday matinee. (The scene where the cowboy lets the air out of the bad guy's tires is hilarious.)

Looking forward to this one, and from what Ms. Z says it seems like it's a decent sequel. Thanks for the review

Either Ms. Zacharek's sentence structure is awkward, or she's never really listened to Boris Karloff. No one could ever accurately mimic Karloff without adding a lisp.

After seeing the trailer it appears Hank Azaria rehashed the accent he used in Mystery Men as the Blue Rajah.

than Ben Stiller?

In 1989 Gore Vidal published "The Smithsonian," which is really the adult version of "Night at the Museum." The past presidents of the United States, pretty much the whole gang, come to life when the museum closes and discuss the state of the Union. It is set just before the beginning of WW II. There is a lot to talk about. I recall that Grover Cleveland's second wife and child bride, Frankie, plays a major role, which is probably why the story was never bought by one of the major studios and they opted for a kid's version. Hey Gore, if you read this and decide to sue, remember where you got the idea.

The thing I like about these flicks is that you sort of need to know some human and natural history to get a lot of the jokes. They also might encourage people to check out a museum occasionally.

Two words:

Dane Cook.

Stephanie Zackareck is the #1 reason why I don't have a Salon Premium account.

The worst god damned taste in movies I've ever seen.

"Historical characters come back to hysterical life in this sequel to the charming megahit starring Ben Still"

You have to be shitting me.

Unmutual: "Stephanie Zackareck is the #1 reason why I don't have a Salon Premium account. The worst god damned taste in movies I've ever seen."

So did you see the movie in question, or are you simply assuming it's bad in order to dismiss the reviewer?

This off-spring of one-dimensional stereotypes (are there any other kinds?) has brought everything to the table over his career. Sometimes good, sometimes awful but usually meh. He lacks the gift of a good comedian in that he can't subsume his inner rage. The fact that he had me banned from posting on the Huffington thing would have nothing to do with my entry...

I'll go with the law of averages. If less than 50% of critics like it, it probably sucks.

Re the "Is there anyone...less funny than Ben Stiller?" question, the answer would have to be yes. Just about everyone in Hollywood is less funny than Ben Stiller.

The author doesn't write the tag line

I usually agree with Stephanie, but not this time. I went to to see this one yesterday with my family. The kids liked it, but seemed underwhelmed. The adults didn't like it, and we all loved the first one, which made this one an even bigger disappointment.

Why, when Hollywood types get together to make a sequel to a successful movie, do they change everything that made the original successful? The first movie encouraged kids to read about history, and the hero eventually succeeds because he uses the knowledge he's gained through study. In the sequel, history is just a source for dumb jokes and gags (see extended joke about whether Khamunrah is wearing a dress or a tunic). There is an endless scene of Stiller and Jonah Hill insulting each other. There are several homages to the Three Stooges.

Finally, my biggest complaint: where are the women from the original film? They've all been dispatched in the sequel, and their whereabouts are not even mentioned. Carla Gugino, Stiller's former love interest, is gone, like a ex-Bond girl, without explanation. His ex-wife (and mother of his son) is also gone. Sacajawea is barely present, serving mainly as a foil for the new male characters.

The only woman around is Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart, and her character is apparently killed off at the end. For some reason, she can't live at the museum with the rest of the gang, and has to fly off into the sunrise, where, according to the first movie, she will turn to dust. Thanks guys! Just what I wanted to see with my young daughter!

Adam Sandler

Carla Gugino was a minor character in the first film, even as a potential love interest. They didn't do much with her. As a personality, Gugino is all right, but Amy Adams is hot stuff lately. I agree that the movie didn't have much female power (though Azaria was rather effeminate) outside of Amelia Earhart. Sacajawea's role wasn't really something you wanted more of, was it? They didn't just leave her behind, they also left behind Robin Williams (for the most part) and obviously the three oldsters from the first film. I think the idea was not to rehash the same people too much. I could have done with less of Wilson calling Stiller "Gigantor," but most of the rest of the movie was pretty well updated. (One thing I hate in sequels is just painting by the numbers of all the story elements that made the first sequel a success.)

Regarding Amelia Earhart flying away at the end, you're right that the internal logic wasn't consistent in terms of what happens to these enlivened creatures. But this movie didn't indicate that anybody would turn to dust (it conveniently fudged the whole issue) and the implication with Earhart's character is that her spirit was mirrored in the down-to-earth redhead who showed up to flirt with Stiller at the reinvigorated Natural History Museum.

If you have so much invested in the original movie's characters that you notice their absence, you have a longer-term memory than most audiences. (I would guess you've seen the first one on video a few times.) The nature of this movie is that it's schlocky family fare, not a richly detailed fantasy with deeply drawn-out characters. The movie's dialogue makes it pretty clear that it isn't designed to be taken seriously (for example, with Azaria's self-mocking proclamations of his villainous intentions).