The “lame, dumb” comedy that rubbed Roger Ebert the wrong way: “Oh, did I dislike this film”
The highest-grossing movies of any given year aren’t always destined to win the best reviews, and acclaim usually does absolutely nothing to stop them from making a shit ton of money. Roger Ebert knew that, but he still wouldn’t give a blockbuster hit a free pass.
Effects-heavy escapism wasn’t his preferred form of cinema, which is an understatement. He abhorred every single one of the Michael Bay-directed Transformers films that were released during his lifetime, and he generally crapped all over the filmmaker’s output in general, not that he was alone in doing so.
Some of Ebert’s most scathing reviews were reserved for high-concept flights of fancy, because he couldn’t comprehend why so much money was being spent on spectacle at the expense of a coherent story, characters with more than one dimension, or any sense of creativity beyond pixelated carnage.
As far as his harshest reviews go, few were scribbled about a more inoffensive feature than Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. Helmed by Shawn Levy, who’s proven himself as one of Hollywood’s most expensive key-janglers, which isn’t a compliment, it didn’t have a very high bar to clear after its predecessor made a lot of money in spite of being mediocre from start to finish.
Almost impressively, the sequel was even more unremarkable than the original and made less money. Wasting a ludicrous assemblage of talent, which included Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Amy Adams, Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling, Owen Wilson, and Jon Bernthal, Ebert almost felt bad for being so harsh towards airheaded, undemanding, family-friendly entertainment.
“Don’t trust me on this movie,” he clarified at the start of a 1.5-star review. “It rubbed me the wrong way. I can understand, as an abstract concept, why some people would find it entertaining. It sure sounds intriguing: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. If that sounds fun to you, don’t listen to sourpuss here.”
With his handy preface out of the way, Ebert could share his true thoughts: “Oh, did I dislike this film,” he offered. “Its premise is lame, its plot relentlessly predictable, its characters with personalities that would distinguish picture books, its cost incalculable.”
Ebert did point out that he doesn’t “mind a good dumb action movie,” but Battle of the Smithsonian wasn’t one of them. Instead, he was bored senseless from the first frame to the last, and cried foul over an enticing premise being wasted on a formulaic slog, although he was at least kind enough to give Adams a passing grade for her turn as Amelia Earhart, the sole bright spot in a sea of mundanity.
In fact, he didn’t see it as a movie at all, but a dreaded studio-backed “product,” and even offered an unfavourable comparison to another well-known grift: “Like ectopolasm from a medium, it is the visible extrusion of a marketing campaign.” Harsh? Definitely. Accurate? 100%.
Nobody went to see any of the Night of the Museum movies expecting high art or Scorsese-approved absolute cinema, but the filmmakers could have at least tried.
