That quote is from the famous film reviewer Roger Ebert, who's critiqued everything from The Mummy to Cars 2 (both of which I like, by the way, as far as they go for entertaining the masses). Personally I like these movies, not nearly so much as The Little Vampire, which holds a very dear place in my heart, but I like them. I place them right up there with the first National Treasure, the first two Mummy movies (Mummy and Mummy Returns), Yu-Gi-Oh, and maybe an Indiana Jones flick or two. They belong in the category of Action/Adventure/Egypt (in some cases the last can be replaced with Ancient World or Conspiracy Theories), or in other words, "Dog Days of Summer movies".
But apparently not a lot of professional reviewers share my opinion. Some concede their entertainment value and their worth for planting the kid in front of for a couple hours and maybe getting lost in the wacky hi-jinks yourself, but others take issue with the special effects, the overemphasis on slapstick comedy over plot/concept development, the acting (namely Ben Stiller; I've read glowing comments on Hank Azaria and Amy Adams concerning their roles in BOTS), lack of a plot period, and that the sequel has fallen prey to the "bigger is better" disease that commonly befalls sequels. I'm no film authority, I'm not even a film student, so while I am starting to notice odd elements of cinematography (the lens effect, for example, which I noticed in a rendition of Henry IV) and similar, I feel unqualified to comment on acting or special effects. Therefore, I will place more focus here on plot development vs comedy elements, plot presence or absence, and "sequelitis".
Plot, Comedy, and Balance
It isn't just slapstick comedy that some people take issue with, especially concerning BOTS. One person noted that the plot "came to a complete halt" at various points throughout the movie to deliver a punchline or have two characters spew witty remarks. Some people call this suspending the plot entirely, I call it comic relief. From my perspective, especially in BOTS, the plot is still in motion, but it "stops", to use that word, at points where it is allowed to do so. When there is enough tension to sustain the movie at a given point and you need something to break it for the sake of your audience, this is a point where you would introduce a moment of comic relief. This can be a slap fight between Ben Stiller and two monkeys (would love to see how they choreographed that, but I'm getting off topic), or it could be delivering witty remarks back and forth, or it could even be taking a break in the action plot to have Amelia and Larry discuss Larry's current life choices and whether or not he's made the right ones (following the plot of Larry finding himself and placing it more under the category of plots and subplots).
Verdict: Comedy is a good thing, and the plot stopping thing, it's so you can take a break from drama.
Plot or No Plot
I don't see this complaint very much, as generally people complain about stand-stills, but I will concede that the set-up in the original NATM is quite slow. This, though, is done to establish Larry's character and relationships with other characters around him, including his son, ex-wife, and the people he's replacing, and to set up the concept that everything comes to life at night and it's up to Larry to manage the chaos as much as possible. Now, I will confess that NATM does something relatively poorly: its subplot of Cecil and his two colleagues trying to frame Larry for robbing from the museum and thus ruining his life. This element of the plot could have used more of the set-up time and been developed further.
Verdict: Plot does exist. You can see in the first movie that the screenwriters are getting their feet wet with the idea, but by the second time around, things pull together really well in that regard.
"Sequelitis"
This is to say, does the sequel fall prey to being "bigger and better" than the original, to the detriment of the film. The great thing about the sequel is that the concept was already set up in the first film, so the writers, director, and actors can take it and run with it. This allows more set-up time to be devoted to the plot and subplots of the sequel. This also allows for more time for action, comedy, adventure, and bad guys being bad guys. BOTS takes the concept of Night at the Museum and transplants it in the Smithsonian, the largest museum in the world (technically nineteen different museums, housing everything from Egyptian artifacts to pop culture icons). Chaos ensues, many henchmen get trapped in a picture. The biggest complaint is that there is too much going on.
In the original, exhibits from one museum were coming to life. In the sequel, exhibits from three museums and the Lincoln Memorial were coming to life. In the original, the bad guys were looking to gain eternal life and vitality, and they only involved themselves. In the sequel, the bad guy is forced to recruit other bad guys to help achieve his ends, to open a gate to the underworld, release his army of the damned, and take over the world. I've read that they pile up the special effects in the sequel, whereas in the original more actors were involved. They've also added characters rather than simply replacing them. This leads into my main gripe with the upcoming third and the introduction of yet more new characters to the mix with the remainder relegated to extras. At this rate, the franchise will expand to a Loads and Loads of Characters universe, to the detriment of character development, and eventually the weight of the people in the verse will cause it to collapse in on itself. They haven't gotten there yet, and as far as too much going on, well, I don't see it. They've already established what the tablet can do, so they have more time to focus on action and conflict, which they do.
When it comes to "sequelitis", my fears are into the future of the franchise. Not only the added characters when they could give Ahkmenrah an origin story or have him reunite with his brother (I'd shoot a guy to see that movie), but the elements implied by Lancelot's presence: Excalibur potentially being a real, magical thing; King Arthur; the other Knights of the Round Table; Morgan La Fey and whether or not she has actual powers; the list goes on, and that's just everything that pertains to the Arthur mythos. Conceding that there are other magical elements besides the tablet, what relevance does the Sword in the Stone have? The tablet is a completely fictional object made up for the Night at the Museum concept and franchise, and a modern invention by default though it plays a little on elements of Egyptian mythology. The Sword in the Stone has a long, established mythological history with a canon on how it works and what it's used for. It was designed by Merlin to serve as support for England's true king. This has nothing to do with exhibits coming to life so far as I understand it. Unless Lancelot is delusional the way Kahmunrah is proud and grandiose, and Excalibur is one of his hallucinations, then I think I can deal with it, but other than that, I have a serious problem with the concept Lancelot's presence as antagonist of NATM 3 implies.
Verdict: Sequel's fine, but future installments are troublesome.
So that's my take on several common points in reviews for both movies, as well as dipping into the third. One person believes no one asked for the third, but given the box office success of the first two, I seriously doubt that. Money talks, honey.
Next on "For the Love of Night at the Museum": your blogger on this series has tried to start a meme. Read all about it and experience some of what she's come up with, next.
No comments:
Post a Comment