Well, it's unsurprisingly 'not a good film'. Lots of characters but none will stick with you after the credit ends. What is sad is that most characters were just wasted. Few gags still worked though. Amy Adams was great. And let's be real, this year alone, family friendly flick can be a lot worse (Race to the Witch Mountain). C

Saw the opening 15mins before leaving the theatre. (Just popped into another cinema and it was showing)
But it looks like the kind of movie where if you enjoyed the first, you'll enjoy the second.
However I found the first mildly entertaining and so it didn't do anything for me.
Stiller acted as bad as in the first too and the jokes were also quite mediocre.
Keep in mind this is the opening 15mins only.

I watched the first movie the other afternoon. It was pretty bad.

This, however, after a dreadful opening fifteen or so minutes, is good-natured fun. I enjoyed it. Amy Adams is in her divine screwball mode and I continue to believe she is the best actress alive. See it for her.

The entire middle section of this film, in fact, is bouncy and funny and charming. It sorta dies again at the end, though. Be warned. The whole enterprise suffers because you can tell it's being written by guys whose trade is sketch comedy.

I mostly disliked this. Not even one chuckle. The monkey slapping and the Einsteins were especially annoying. The ending, where the golden plate had to be replaced to throw Hank Azaria into the underworld, made zero sense. What was the point of Larry removing the golden plate in the first place only to replace it a minute later?

Some scenes dragged on much too long. To wit, Ben Stiller and Jonah Goldberg's touching scene and Stiller and Azaria's scene debating the golden plate.

The only interesting thing was the bubbly presence of Amy Adams.

I hated the first film too. This one could have done with a bit more Mickey Rooney.

I actually found it to be a pretty decent film. I hated the first, but this one was a lot better. I laughed a few times. Other times the jokes were dreadful. Overall, it was actually quite solid.

AGREED. Wow those were terribly long scenes.

The good:
Amy Adams
Hank Azaria's voice and performance
Al Capone
General Custer
The paintings

The bad:
The final "battle"
The very bad pacing - too many dialogue skits that don't work

Overall a "meh" movie with a couple laughs here and there. Could have been a reeeally cool movie if done right.

C+

I actually... really liked this. It hits all the right notes for a blockbuster and delivers on bringing the entertainment/gags it sets out to. Fun characters, pace, chases. A real breeze

I'd take this a million times out of a million over say, Wolverine

I really liked this one hahaha, Hank Azaria's voice and performance is the best part of the movie......

B+

It's not awful by any means, just staggeringly mediocre. There's never the least hint of peril or danger, with the film instead relying completely on inanimate objects and historical figure cameos. These are amusing, on occasion even inspired, but they only distract from the overarching problem: There's just no reason to care. Sure, Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are both amusing, but overall there's a prevalent sense that no one involved has a film idea of where the story is going, or why. For a good portion of the film Ben Stiller is trying to figure out how to open the gate to the underworld for Azaria's villainous pharaoh. This is apparently the only way he can get mini-Owen Wilson out of the clutches of the bad guys. More than wondering why he doesn't just enlist any of the helpful exhibits, I got to thinking, is this really the best they can do? And repeatedly, that same question arises: How does it take them so long to get the ball rolling? How can such a broad comedic cast have so many jokes fail? Is that really the best way to resolve the romantic chemistry between Sandler and Adams?

The scope is wisely kept to a single night, but it's amazing how little Shawn Levy can squeeze out of such a fun concept. I still say Stephen Sommers would have been a better director for these films.

quite a pleasant surprise. Though it lacks the freshness of the original (naturally), it makes up for it by taking the concept to much bigger, better, and funnier places. They probably could've benefitted from dropping at least a few of the thirty or so major characters, but this was a nice bit of silly fun.

B

on a side note, does this movie have the biggest cast of all-time, or what? Including cameos, there were at least twenty recognizable actors in there. Ben Stiller sure has a lot of comedian friends.

I'd pretty much echo this. Especially the point about it being written by sketch comedy guys since the film does feel like a series of stitched together scenes although thankfully there were more hits then misses.

I kind of hated the first. Wouldn't have even bothered with this one if it weren't for Amy Adams. I ended up very pleasantly surprised though. This was really cute and enjoyable, thanks in large part to Adams. It makes me want a third, as long as she's back of course.

Grade: 7/10 ( B )

Night at the Museum 2 is a bit better than its predecessor in that it had a much richer and easier to go with plotline. Add in a bit more of an enjoyable cast (with Hank Azaria standing out the most) and you get a fun and unharmful family flick. It's a good enough waste of 2 hours. **1/2

Just saw this. Enjoyable fluff. I loved the paintings and Amy Adams. Some scenes really dragged, others were quite funny. Very predictable plot though, no surprises -- except maybe the surprise of being able to fly to New York from Washington and back in less than an hour.

I actually hadn't seen this one before. I must've missed it. I know I saw the first and third, but this one passed me by somehow. I didn't miss anything. It's bigger, but it's a far cry from being better. The first isn't great, but the sequel stinks. It's so weird. Hank Azaria is embarrassing. Bill Hader is awful. So many of the jokes and characters are lame, and the Darth Vader cameo was cringeworthy. The whole film doesn't make sense. In the first film, you could turn one of the tablet's segments and the exhibits would go back to being exhibits. That could have been used so many times in this film to save the day. I know it's just a fun movie for kids, but the logic isn't there. My son even called out mistakes. Talking of sons, the film drops that plot rather quickly. Larry doesn't keep in touch with him once he no longer needs his help. The film also misses Paul Rudd, and I'm bored by how these films always focus on Egyptian historical figures as the antagonists/source of trouble. I suppose the tablet being the centre of the magic has forced them into that corner, but it's rather boring, and the third movie is called Secret of the Tomb, so it continues.