NightAtTheMuseum Tagged Articles at Cinematical

In an interesting video game/movie tie-in, GameStop has a promo running until June 30, 2009 ("or until all e-Movie Cash tickets have been distributed, whichever comes first," natch) called "Love the Movie - Live the Game," and it's definitely a mixed bag.

Basically, if you buy one of the following games, you can get a $10 voucher for select movies at participating theaters that's only good until July 31, 2009. That's a lot of ifs, especially if you check out the games they're offering, which are not all tied in to current releases. And some of them will make real gaming geeks bleed from the eyes. Take a look.

It's hard to deny that, in any format, The Dark Knight has made a considerable impression on the moviegoing landscape (current gross: a bajillion dollars and counting), yet it's equally difficult to deny that the IMAX showings held their own potent appeal, thanks to director Christopher Nolan's use of proper cameras to help the action fill the screen -- and if any of you haven't noticed, that's a lot of screen to fill.

ComingSoon.net has confirmed that next summer's Night at the Museum and Transformers sequels will be showcased in IMAX, while it remains rumored that this fall's Eagle Eye and next spring's Watchmen will be as well. Now, while Paramount/Dreamworks and Warner Brothers have often been equally eager to offer up super-sized blockbusters in the format, I'm curious to know if audiences have subsequently raised their expectations for this fare. For me, the nearest location is well across town, and before The Dark Knight, the last thing I bothered to catch there was Beowulf in 3-D. (I can, however, attest that announced plans to format several theaters in the AMC chain for the IMAX experience are indeed underway a wee bit closer to my neck of the woods.)

So, without the draw of IMAX in its full effect, or even the likes of 3-D technology, do you find it any more worthwhile to go out of your way and catch an anticipated film at your nearest location, or will it take something truly special from here on out?

If the sequel to Night at the Museum wanted to retain the level of accuracy seen with the original, it would have a Chinese actor playing Russian Czar Ivan IV (aka Ivan the Terrible). But while I'm sure there will still be historical errors abound in Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, the honor of playing Ivan has gone instead to pale-enough actor/filmmaker Christopher Guest (Best in Show), according to the Hollywood Reporter. And since Guest is actually a far more serious man than you'd expect, despite all those silly mockumentaries he writes and directs, here's hoping he studies his Eisenstein for inspiration.

A bunch of other actors have also joined Ben Stiller in the fantasy film, including Jon Bernthal (World Trade Center) as Al Capone, Bill Hader (Superbad) as General Custer, Alain Chabat (The Science of Sleep) as Napoleon and the franchise's screenwriters, Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, as the Wright brothers. This makes for a very packed cast, considering most of the first movie's co-stars are apparently returning, including Robin Williams, Steve Coogan, Owen Wilson, Ricky Gervais, Dick Van Dyke, Jake Cherry and Patrick Gallagher, the guy who looked all wrong for the part of Atilla the Hun. Other newbies to the series include Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart and Hank Azaria as Egyptian pharaoh Kah Mun Rah.

The sequel is currently filming in Vancouver, which seems a bit far away from the actual Smithsonian Institute, but reportedly the production will have access to shoot a few scenes in the actual museum, which is located in Washington, D.C. Maybe it will actually look like it takes place there, too.

I just caught Night at the Museum on cable the other day, and I still feel the same way about it: It's a fun little flick for kids and, at times, adults, even though the story is a bit iffy (I've always hated the whole "Dad needs to prove he's cool to his son" stuff). When the film hit theaters back in 2006, audiences went nuts for it -- and so a sequel was all but certain. Night at the Museum 2: Escape from the Smithsonian has already lined up Ben Stiller to reprise the lead role, as well as Hank Azaria (who'll play an Egyptian pharaoh) and Amy Adams (who'll play Amelia Earhart, apparently, instead of Reese Witherspoon). Now, in speaking to Azaria, MTV found out that Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan and Ricky Gervais will be back (reprising their roles from the first film, one assumes).

Gervais has been on the fence for awhile now; only a few short months ago, he revealed to us that his character is in the script and he would love to show up in the sequel should his busy schedule allow it. If Azaria is correct, it looks like Gervais has found some spare time after all. On his role, Azaria notes, "I'm the villain in the movie and have all sorts of nasty plans for modern society and poor Ben Stiller gets caught in the middle of it." On his fellow cast members, Azaria says, "Owen [Wilson] is coming back and so is Steve Coogan and Ricky Gervais. And there's other fun folks too who haven't officially signed on yet playing historical figures."

Since they're at the Smithsonian this time around, who do you think those other historical figures will be?

This wouldn't be the first time that a sequel recycled material from the first movie, but since Night at the Museum 2: Escape From the Smithsonian has apparently gone so far as to change the museum setting from New York's Museum of Natural History to D.C.'s Smithsonian Institute, I'd think it would want to avoid repeating material from the original. I guess not. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Night at the Museum sequel will feature an "all-powerful Egyptian pharaoh" played by Hank Azaria, who is best known for the 1,000 voices he does for The Simpsons. If you remember, the plot of the first Night at the Museum involved a gold tablet stolen from the tomb of the fictional mummified pharaoh Akmenrah. In this sequel, which again stars Ben Stiller and again is directed by Shawn Levy and is again written by Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant, the pharaoh's name is Kah Mun Rah. It isn't stated whether or not the character will be a villain or not, but if Azaria does play an evil pharaoh, it wouldn't be the first time he played a nuisance to Stiller. In 2004's Along Came Polly, he was a scuba instructor who steals Stiller's character's new bride (played by Debra Messing) on the couple's honeymoon.

The trade also notes that Azaria has been cast in another ancient-history kind of role. He will play Abraham in The Year One, the Biblical-era-set comedy from producer Judd Apatow and director Harold Ramis, which Monika first told us about back in June, 2007. That movie stars an all-star lineup that includes Jack Black, Michael Cera, David Cross, Christopher "McLovin" Mintz-Plasse, Eden Riegel, Oliver Platt, Olivia Wilde and Vinnie Jones. Be prepared to hear Azaria do some crazy accents for each of these films, even though he typically avoids the cartoony voices in his live-action work (such as next month's hilarious comedy Run, Fatboy, Run).

If you grew up in or around New York and spent any time in the city's Museum of Natural History, you were probably baffled by Night at the Museum, which portrayed the landmark so loosely that it was totally unrecognizable. If you had to choose whether to bet that the museum was storing mermaids in a secret room (as in Splash) or resembled much of the interiors of the Shawn Levy-directed, Ben Stiller-starred comedy, you might have better odds with the former (it could be storing mermaids, but it definitely does not look like it does in NATM). Fortunately for us in the Big Apple, Night at the Museum 2 will take place in another location. In an interview with IGN, screenwriters Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon revealed this bit of info, though they couldn't divulge the actual museum we'll be seeing in the sequel (like Erik, I'd love to see a Salvador Dalí exhibit -- please put Stiller in Figueres' Teatre-Museu Dalí). Aside from this tiny leak, the duo, who wrote this next week's release Balls of Fury, could only share that it will be funnier than the original, which they also wrote, and that it would have "big new characters."

Of course, Robin Williams is reportedly signed on for the sequel, so the new museum will have to have its own Teddy Roosevelt statue -- unless Stiller's character takes the other one with him, which I doubt could happen. Despite the all the historical inaccuracies -- Attila the Hun obviously confused with Genghis Khan -- and the fact that it was obviously not shot inside the real Museum of Natural History, I didn't despise the first Night at the Museum. It sure was stupid, but I kinda enjoyed the miniature Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan, and I love a geriatric villain, especially when one of them is played by Mickey Rooney. Most of all, though, I appreciate the fact that it got kids more interested in the real museum, which saw a huge boost in ticket sales following the movie's success. It almost makes up for the inaccuracies that kids likely found out the real history and science by visiting the real place. Hopefully Garant and Lennon do better research for whatever museum they're tackling for part 2.

Check out IGN's video after the jump.

At least once a day we hear about this or that project being "the next big franchise," but following the disappointing performance of Eragon, it is hard to tell which one(s) will actually pull it off. Despite 20th Century Fox already having a potential series on its hands with Night at the Museum, it has brought on that film's director, Shawn Levy, for another attempt at building a brand of blockbusters. This one is based on another children's fantasy novel, the not-yet-published The Seems: The Glitch in Sleep, which seems to need a new title. Part of an eventual series, the book involves a parallel universe in which things like sleep, weather and memory are designed and manufactured. The plot of the first installment follows a boy who must save this world from a glitch in that world. The script for the movie will be written by the book's authors, John Hulme and Michael Wexler (I guess it will be awhile before the next book then?)

Although Levy is on my list of the worst working directors, he isn't much worse than Chris Columbus, who got the ball rolling with the first two Harry Potter movies. He could very well make another hugely successful fantasy film, as he shockingly did with Museum. But at the same time, he has so many projects in the pipeline right now, including Hardy Men and The Flash, that he probably won't devote enough time to any one project to make it really worth our time and money. If he couldn't respect simple historical facts for Museum like Atilla the Hun's race, then he probably won't bother doing any other preparation for The Seems. I guess with a fantasy world, he doesn't have to worry about making errors, but still.

Just as you might expect, many of the recently released, universally-panned movies are bringing in big box-office numbers, while praised films like Zodiac are falling short. Using the Rotten Tomatoes scale, which is usually quite forgiving when it comes to negative reviews: Wild Hogs, which was the number 1 film of last weekend, rests at 18%, Norbit rests at 10%, Ghost Rider came in with 27% and Night at the Museum had the highest with 45%, which is still low for a multi-week #1 hit.

With the box-office squarely on their side, the big honchos of mainstream movies are now, unsurprisingly, picking a fight with critics. An exec at Disney recently went on record saying that "critics are out of touch with their readership," while Tom Rothman of Fox proudly says that his feature wasn't embraced by "highfalutin snooty snoot critics." At least he was creative with his distaste. But when has big money ever equalled big quality? McDonald's rakes in the bucks, but no one calls the Big Mac gourmet. So, why are execs getting ticked off when critics, who are paid to evaluate how well something is done, see a film as a limp fast food burger and not a juicy taste of Kobe beef? You might like the limp burger, but that doesn't mean that it was made just as well as the gourmet one.

There's no winner or loser to this debate because the sides aren't arguing about the same thing. Just because a film does well does not mean that it is good. Can anyone attached to any of those films say that they are as good as some of their highly-regarded, highly-praised films? Would William H. Macy describe Wild Hogs as comparable to Pleasantville or Boogie Nights? No. It's time for these execs to stop getting ticked at critics when their crappy, or questionable big-box-office movie gets panned, and start seeing their mainstream schlock for what it is.

Happy midday Monday, all. I have to say, little disappointed in this weekend's box office results. 'Norbit' making $33 million? Seriously? Who has nothing better to do on a weekend than spend two-plus hours (what with getting to the cineplex, standing in line for popcorn and then finding a seat in the -- apparently crowded -- theater) on 'Norbit'? And it's not like the trailers or any clips that I've seen make it look like it's going to be good. And OK, I haven't seen it, so I can't swear that it's, um, not worth your two hours on a weekend, but based on the previews I've seen and the reviews I've read and the word of mouth I've heard (from the one person I know who's seen it, she works next to me, but for AOL TV), I'd be willing to bet the farm that this is not Murphy's finest hour and a half.

In short, 'Norbit' made a lot of moolah. Here's what Patricia predicted Friday:

1. Norbit
2. Hannibal Rising
3. The Messengers
4. Because I Said So
5. Epic Movie

And here's the actual weekend top five:

1. Norbit - $33.7 million (!)
2. Hannibal Rising - $13.35 million
3. Because I Said So - $9 million
4. The Messengers - $7.2 million
5. Night at the Museum - $5.75 million

Get the full box-office report here.

I know Patricia contemplated leaving 'Night at the Museum' in her top 5, but just couldn't believe it would hold onto that spot AGAIN. Whoops. But the box-office-prediction playas rocked it this week: There was a three-way tie for second place and a six-way tie for fourth place. Whoa. Very sweet, guys.

Disney will be trying hard this summer to get Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End into Chinese cinemas despite the fact that the last installment of the franchise was banned by the country's censors. Obviously the studio is aware that many of China's movie fans at least got to see Dead Man's Chest via bootleg, and it understandably wants to profit from those fans' desire to see part three. But this isn't just about exploiting the expectant audiences, and it isn't exactly about fighting piracy. All of Hollywood wants to succeed in the Chinese market because it is a growing source of income for the studios.

What this means for the rest of the world may be nothing. Hollywood studios and distribs will likely start censoring for easy approval by China the same way they censor for the rest of the international markets. As I mentioned recently when The Departed failed with Chinese censors, the best way for a film to meet approval is for it to have no mention of China. However, the Chinese aren't only concerned with references to themselves; Dead Man's Chest was banned because it featured cannibals.

The Chinese version of our holiday season is coming up soon, and the titles looking for big box office are Night at the Museum, which has been performing brilliantly all over the world, 16 Blocks and South Korea's Joong Cheon (The Restless). These will be taking up three of the 20 quota slots that China allows to be filled by imported titles, and the last of these fills one slot that Hollywood missed out on. Following this month's big movie-going time, Hollywood will continue trying to fill in the rest of these slots, and so Chinese audiences may or may not get proper releases of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Pursuit of Happyness, Transformers and At World's End.