You think that girl crying was just a sniffle before it was over with. Oh, no. She’s just getting started! Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics to see the water works in full effect!
Sorry for the delay on Monday’s comic. I know I promised it to you late yesterday, but the Memorial Day holiday kind of got in the way. I thought I was going to have an opportunity to draw and ink the strip while Henry was napping, but it didn’t work out that way. Then, despiteGordon’s upset stomach, Joe and I decided to go through with recording last night’s The Triple Feature podcast and that pushed my time line back further. When it was all said and done, I said to myself, “This is going to have to be a Tuesday comic instead.”
Incidentally, regarding last night’s The Triple Feature, I strongly suggest you check it out. I think Joe and I had a really good show. We were really clicking. We talked about Angels & Demons and Terminator Salvation and I spent a little time discussing Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.
Regarding the latter, I saw strong>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian and liked it. The movie is certainly better than the first because it’s smart enough to put the “divorced Dad just trying to do right by his kid” angle into the background and focuses on what people really came to the theater for – classical sculpture preening like a Brooklyn pigeon for statues of antiquity.
“BOOM! BOOM! FIAHPOWAH!”
Amy Adams plays Ben Stiller’s love interest in the film as aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart. I found Adams winning in the role, even if she was using some kind of clipped 1920’s vocal affectation not entirely dissimilar from Katherine Hepburn (I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe everyone from the 20s and 30s talked with that way).
I do have to admit that the question of Earhart’s sexual orientation crept into my head while watching the movie. Later, when I was discussing today’s comic, Cami did have to correct me as to her marital status, which I was totally oblivious to.
Doing research for the comic, rumors of Earhart’s sexuality were never confirmed. Truthfully, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was an ugly rumor created to discredit her as being “butch” or some such nonsense for entering into the field of aviation – an arena many men of the period did not feel women belonged.
Ultimately, it doesn’t mater. It matters even less within the context of the movie. It’s Earhart’s Spirit of Adventure that Stiller’s character is meant to fall in love with. It’s his wake up call to leave the corporate world he went on to establish himself in and reconnect with his true passion – being a night guard at a magical museum.
Aside from Adams, Hank Azaria is effective as the slapstick villain Kahmunrah. Again, putting on an usual accent, I found his Karloff-esque lisp funny the first few scenes he was in, but distracting later on.
Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan and Robin Williams show up and get a few good lines. Coogan as the Roman General Octavius probably gets the funniest bit in the movie as he charges toward the White House in an attempt to notify the President of the situation at the Smithsonian. Bill Hader also gets in a few funny moments early on as the vain and self-important General Custer. His hair care regimen alone will leave you ROFLing in your popcorn.
There are a ton of cameos in the movie too many to mention. Truthfully, I wouldn’t want to tell you. I think you’d be better off surprised. But nearly every up-and-coming comedic performer of the last 5 years shows up in this thing and it’s fun to go “Hey, I know that person!”
At least it was fun for me. I’m simple like that.
Between all this comedic talent, you can tell there was room left in the script for improvisation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Some bits go on a little too long – as if the performers are purposefully trying to push an idea from funny to unfunny an back to “funny” again. They don’t always salvage the effort. But the exchanges are refreshing in the sense that the characters just and spewing boilerplate “Now I will do THIS!” / “No, you can’t!” dialogue at each other.
The last little gripe I’ll make about the movie is that despite the fact it’s promoting history, it’s historically inaccurate. There is a chase sequence inside the Air & Space Museum where Stiller and Adams’ characters dislodge the Wright Brothers plane from it’s ceiling mount and fly it out of the building. Not only do they fly it out of the building, they fly around inside the building for a while. Not only do the fly around inside the building for a while, they make a series of impossible maneuvers, dipping and diving around the other aircraft on displace before launching into the skies over Washington D.C. for a languid, romantic moment.
I’m sorry – but wasn’t this the plane that was only able to maintain flight for about 12 seconds?
I don’t mean to be a milksop. I recognize that the movie is fantasy and has to bend the rules a little bit to be entertaining. After all, if I’m going to nit-pick the aerobatic prowess of the world’s first airplane, there’s probably something I should say about a magical Egyptian tablet that brings wax sculptures to life, right?
But intentionally or not, a movie like this will generate an interest in history. It’s basically on big commercial for the Smithsonian. Shouldn’t the producers be a little bit more responsible with what they are portraying on screen?
Or, considering the audience the movie is targeted toward – young kids – is it acceptable to tell a small lie to foster interest in the larger truth? Personally, I’m not a fan of the idea that kids deserve dumbed down entertainment. Kids are capable of understanding much more than we give them credit for. But I suppose if it get’s them away from video games, I’m okay with the idea that the Wright’s plane can perform loops…
I feel like there is more I can be blogging about. I also caught Terminator Salvation this weekend and have some opinions on that. But I think I’ll wrap things up for now.
Did anyone here catch Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian this weekend? What did you think? Did you find it better than the original? Are you able to look over some of the more fantastic elements if it serves the entertainment value of the movie?
Leave your thoughts below!
I thought it was good, but I didn't understand the love connection with Amelia Earhart. Wasn't she gay?
Okay, first of all, that was a rumor.
She was married to George Putnam for 6 years before she disappeared.
Second, it's a family movie, not a BBC documentary.
Third, you TOTALLY just made that little girl cry.
I caught Night at the Museum yesterday, and I actually really liked it.
I thought that the first film was good, but that it lost a little of its flair part way through the movie. I thought that this film found a way to space out everything so that it didn’t peak to early.
Also, I thought the message was great. Do what you love to do. In hard economic times like these, I think it is important that we take a little bit of the focus off of money. Yeah, having money is great, but if you’re miserable, what’s the point?
Finally, my mom and I got a kick out of identifying all of the cameos that were there, specifically cameos from the Office.
Oh, the whole flying the Wright Brother’s plane did make me go “ummmm….no?”, but other than that I really liked it.
Of course the wright plane couldn’t dip and fly with such ease but the Wright plane collectively flew for over a 30 seconds in a pre-official run and the 12 second flight was actually a disappointment to the Wrights when it came to the official flight.
As for kids getting interested in history, I am all for it. As a person who intends to spend their life working in it the idea of people liking the past excites me. Sadly in these economic times museums and such are the first to get cut and Social Studies in schools are joining gym and art as figments of the imagination….But I digress.
I thought the movie was good, Stiller managed not to come off as a pompous ass which is actually pretty difficult for him anymore. Amy Adams was good and sadly from large cities that accent wasn’t terribly uncommon. Early talkies are honest, nobody was making up accents.
Nooo… I’m pretty sure those accents were a studio invention of the 1930’s and 40’s.
Actors and actresses were sent to diction coaches to lend an air of aristocracy and sophistication to their performances. Some of that was born from the natural accents of Betty Davis and Katherine Hepburn, who were popular in the day and attended East Coast boarding schools in their youth, the source of their accents.
SOME people talked like that. But it wasn’t until the popularization of film that EVERYONE started talking like that.
Later models of the Wright Flyer – once they really figured out what they were doing, did much better. The last test of the day (before they wrecked the thing) was about a minute. But two models (and a couple years) later Wilbur was flying one around for nearly 40 minutes.
I thought it was a lot better than the original. I do sort of agree that Azaria’s accent got a little tiresome after a bit, but it didn’t really take anything away from the movie as a whole.
I didn’t really notice many of the cameos (aside from Jonah Hill), but I wouldn’t mind seeing it again to catch them. My friends and I got such a kick out of Hader and were qouting his lines all weekend.
I saw this the other night and I must admit during the first 1/2 hour I was a little less than impressed. I get frustrated by sequels that take what made the original funny and just do it again but more often & louder. Once I got past that feeling though I thought it was a good followup, quite anjoyed Azaria too. And I got an almost perverse amount of enjoyment out of the happy cephalapod!
Why would Amelia Earhart being gay make a little girl cry?
Cognitive dissonance? It conflicts with her idea of what Amelia Earhart was supposed to be?
Okay, fine. Here parents are homophobes.