Night at the Museum
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: December 22, 2006
6.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 357 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
212
Mixed:
105
Negative:
40
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
3
MarkB.Feb 8, 2007
And a long, slow, boring and seemingly endless night it is, too...in short, everything that the Museum of Natural History absolutely is NOT. The partial premise, that this museum is losing money and needs to lay off employees, is flimsier And a long, slow, boring and seemingly endless night it is, too...in short, everything that the Museum of Natural History absolutely is NOT. The partial premise, that this museum is losing money and needs to lay off employees, is flimsier than the footbridge in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but it's only the beginning of the film's problems: they're compounded by an annoyingly witless, unimaginative script that assumes that merely assembling a cast consisting of Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney will automatically grow the laughs and energy that it failed to provide in and of itself. Well, in Aerosmith's immortal words, dream on. Stiller's ineffectual, bumbling schlemiel schtick, which was actually funny once upon a time when he premiered it in There's Something About Mary and followed it up with Meet the Parents, got irreversibly old and tiresome around the time of Along Came Polly roughly 94 movies ago. (An early scene that Stiller shares here with his real-life mom, the legendary comedienne Anne Meara, fails to generate any comic sparks whatsoever because the punchline deals with an invention whose mere mention in a joke renders said joke only slightly less outdated than jokes about streaking or pet rocks. And speaking of lame material, didn't Brokeback Mountain gags die out the week after last year's Oscars...and even if not, what's one doing in what's supposed to be a family film?) Stiller plays a divorced, unemployed father attempting to regain his little boy's respect by taking a night watchman's position at the museum...but he gets more than he expected or prepared for when dinosaurs, cowboys, gladiators and Teddy Roosevelt routinely come to life after the lights go out. The inevitable special effects jamboree that ensues IS genuinely impressive and extremely well done, but since it's in the service of such lackluster material, the result is comparable to Halston or Oscar de la Renta costuming a corpse. And Shawn Levy's traffic-cop direction is forcing me to re-evaluate my long-held ranking of Michael Bay as the biggest hack currently working in Hollywood. Bay may be offensive and obnoxious, but at least he's got a distinctive style. Levy, on the other hand, has specialized almost exclusively in cannibalizing the past: he turned the fine old 1950 Clifton Webb-Myrna Loy period piece Cheaper by the Dozen into just another forgettable slapstick family sitcom that did nothing for Steve Martin except stuff his bank account, and earlier in 2006 he and Martin destroyed Inspector Clouseau for an entire generation. With Night at the Museum, Levy apparently endeavors to do the same for Jurassic Park, The Indian in the Cupboard, Ghostbusters and much, much more, so I guess the man is more ambitious than I initially thought. The real mystery is why America so enthusiastically embraced this thing, making it the Number One box office draw of the Christmas season (outperforming such infinitely superior family fare as Charlotte's Web and even Happy Feet). In contrast, the biggest moneymaker of the previous holiday season was the superb, truly magical fantasy-adventure drama The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; while that was a real diamond, Night at the Museum is a lump of...well, no, I can't say coal because coal at least has the POTENTIAL to eventually become a diamond. Decorum prevents me from going into too much further detail in describing just what it is that most of Night at the Museum constitutes a lump of, except to say that finding it in your Christmas stocking is especially unfortunate because in most parts of the country it's far too cold to open the door and air out the house.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
AproxxAug 14, 2018
How can you make a fantasy comedy and not nail even one joke?

I honestly don't understand how you can consider this movie good.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
RayJan 5, 2007
My daughters thought it was funny, but I though it was pretty awful. Ben Stiller is not funny, the "old guys" of movie were pathetic, Owen Wilson sounded like he was ad-libbing, and Robin Williams seemed as stiff as the wax figure. Yet My daughters thought it was funny, but I though it was pretty awful. Ben Stiller is not funny, the "old guys" of movie were pathetic, Owen Wilson sounded like he was ad-libbing, and Robin Williams seemed as stiff as the wax figure. Yet another movie with a divorced, hapless dad tyring to impress his kid.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
WillH.Feb 3, 2007
Just not funny for anyone over the age of 10. Should have dumbed it down even more and made it G-rated.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FantasyJan 19, 2007
Great movie if you checked your brains at the door, are under the age of ten, or recently had a lobotomy; otherwise it is moronic.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JasonKJan 8, 2007
Probably a great movie if you're younger than 12-years old. For anybody else, it was a dull 90 minutes. The jokes fell flat, Stiller's slapstick act was even worse, and the laughs were scarce. I might have chuckled a few times. Probably a great movie if you're younger than 12-years old. For anybody else, it was a dull 90 minutes. The jokes fell flat, Stiller's slapstick act was even worse, and the laughs were scarce. I might have chuckled a few times. Also disappointing was the poor use of CGI. This movie had lots of potential. It's too bad it was wasted.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
EricC.May 13, 2007
Bland, seen-it-before comedy could be forgivable if this movie spent more time simply running around the museum with its entertaining inhabitants. Unfortunately, most of the movie tries to develop a story, and a terrible one at that.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
B.O.Jan 11, 2007
Man this movie had potential, but the last 30 mins were so lame that it brought down the whole movie; what a joke!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KevinD.Jan 17, 2007
I was instantly put off by the movie from the opnening scene after being surrounded by classes full of kindergardeners through the previews. This movie could have been a clear cut laugh out loud comedy. But tried to hard. Not only with the I was instantly put off by the movie from the opnening scene after being surrounded by classes full of kindergardeners through the previews. This movie could have been a clear cut laugh out loud comedy. But tried to hard. Not only with the jokes, of which a few were funny, but the movie's concept was not. In fact, the concept of the movie made me feel like a three-year-old. It attempts at being touching made me sick to my stomach. Stiller makes a bad move, Williams continues to spiral, and Mickey Rooney gives the only half solid performance in his minor role. The ending of the film was ridiculously lame. Overall, it was depressing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DuWayneBJan 5, 2007
Going in, I knew this was geared to kids and families. This does not mean that it doesn't need to have some form of educational value. This would have been a real way to give some meaning to the movie outside of the stale "role of Going in, I knew this was geared to kids and families. This does not mean that it doesn't need to have some form of educational value. This would have been a real way to give some meaning to the movie outside of the stale "role of males" stereotypes crap. Not clever or engaging, unless you really don't get out much.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ChadS.Mar 13, 2007
If you thought the remake of "The Stepford Wives" was severely flawed at the conceptual stage(were they humans or androids?), "Night at the Museum" manages to be even more befuddling as to the nature of such fantastical beings. Why are some If you thought the remake of "The Stepford Wives" was severely flawed at the conceptual stage(were they humans or androids?), "Night at the Museum" manages to be even more befuddling as to the nature of such fantastical beings. Why are some museum pieces aware of their true selves(Teddy Roosevelt as played by Robin Williams), while other seem to believe that they're actual historical figures(or animals)? It's just a comedy, I know, but you need to establish some rules and abide by them. Take the mummy for instance; he either should have a face that indicates it's of very, very, very, very mature vintage(if the mummy is genuine), or possess no face whatsoever; just a blank slate of a visage(if the mummy is merely a wax display, why bother with a face at all underneath those bandages?). These lapses in logic would be forgivable if "Night at the Museum" was entertaining. It's not. There's no awe factor that these inanimate objects are injected with life. Worst of all, the film doesn't build any suspense in leading up to Larry's supposed-to-be-grand-discovery. "A Night at the Museum" shoots its load too early by stupidly going jurassic on us as a way of introduction. It also rips off "Field of Dreams"(people do indeed come), and "Cocoon"(Dick Van Dyke & Mickey Rooney remind me of the Orbitz ads with Wink Martindale; they're old men so old, you would believe that a magic tablet revived them). And no self-proclaimed history geek alive writing a nine-hundred page book on an "Indian" princess looks like Carla Gugino. When she's ready to interview Sacajawea(Mizuo Peck), you wonder(well, you should wonder) how a wax body learned about its representational self. "Night at the Museum" has got to be a candidate for worst film to ever gross more than two-hundred million dollars at the box office. It should've tanked.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AshleyB.Jan 29, 2007
I came into the movie thinking it was going to be really funny and it was very disappointing. There were some funny parts but over all it sucked.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KevinS.Dec 26, 2006
A film that squanders its many good comic talents deserves to be locked up in a vault in the museum basement. This is the kind of lazy screenwriting and witless direction that has become prevalent in many big hollywood films these days. A film that squanders its many good comic talents deserves to be locked up in a vault in the museum basement. This is the kind of lazy screenwriting and witless direction that has become prevalent in many big hollywood films these days. Having grown up on far superior films like the Indiana Jones series, ET and I daresay Batteries Not Included and The Goonies, I don't think it's much to expect, that in the age of CGI, films should only get better. Very disappointing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
imthenoobOct 18, 2020
Production value is top-notch and the cast does a decent job but the story is so painfully bland and there is a severe lack of comedy. In fact, it's really just a recycle of the same jokes over and over again throughout. It's a kind of movieProduction value is top-notch and the cast does a decent job but the story is so painfully bland and there is a severe lack of comedy. In fact, it's really just a recycle of the same jokes over and over again throughout. It's a kind of movie clearly geared towards kids and even they may be simply uninterested in watching it. It's a shame because it could have been a lot better than what it was.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
clem666Jan 29, 2021
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. How can you miss a movie so hard with such an amazing cast? Come on: Ben Stiller, Ricky Gervais, Dick Van Dyck, Rami Malek, Robin Williams... What happened to y'all?

Scenario is really dumb, childish and doesn't let room for an adult approach of the movie. You have to wait almost an hour to let the movie get over the main joke which is (watch out for spoilers): everything in the museum is living during the night! Amazing. Only when the movie finished to make fun about itself you can tackle the main issue: what do you do with such a ridiculous, inconsistent and easy plot? Everything is so shallow. The only interesting subject is the relation between father (Larry) and son (Nicky) and even this the movie manages to ruin it all. It is almost impossible to develop any empathy for any character because they all are caricatures of themselves! Theodore is that awesome champion who has a fragile heart, the kid Nicky just want to be proud of his father but also want to see amzing stuff to believe in him, Nicky's mother is that mother who doesn't trust her ex-husband anymore. Everything is so shallow down here!

Fortunately all this mess ends on a apparently positive idea. I found interesting the subject to make young and elder generations consider the museums as something you can learn and have fun from. So the end is ridiculous (because it is literally impossible to get over such events) and interesting at the same time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

48 Critic Reviews

6.8 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL