Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

It started off slowly as a simple fun movie with no big ambitions. Now, it has quietly crept up and become a franchise that has its own following, mostly kids and the parents they bring along. It has to be admitted that while everyone enjoyed the first installment of Night at the Museum, no one imagined that we would be having part 2 and now 3. Franchises usually require at least one big star, or at least one well known character, but Ben Stiller and his museum exhibits have chugged along quiet well.

When you walk into Night at the Museum, you know

what to expect. All exhibits coming to life, a big racket about a small problem that means nothing to anybody outside the doors of the museum, lots of tongue in cheek fun, infighting, buffoonery and a happy ending. It’s a movie where the entire world shrinks into the museum and we love that coziness, which is why people are still watching it.

In its third installment, Night at the Museum tries nothing much different. It’s the same characters all over again, so there is no time wasted in explaining anything about anyone. But, this time, the setting of the action shifts to London after beginning in New York. So, now we are in the British museum with the magic tablet, which means that a lot more guys are coming to life. Of those who do, the most notable is the most famous knight ever, Sir Lancelot. His introduction is real fun as he takes on a triceratops skeleton. Of course, we later meet a Pharaoh of Egypt, and his queen, who wants his staff kissed before offering any help to anyone. The most fun, however, is the miniature Garuda who jumps and rants around to prevent the new Yorkers from awakening a monster. And, the Pompeii episode is also a bit of fun that ends with an ‘unnecessary splash’.

But, the shortcoming with the Secret of the Tomb is that the central problem, the actual thing that brought the night guard and a few exhibits to London, looks really silly and watered down when ultimately answered. It looks like a problem that could have been solved by a walk in the park. But then, to complicate and excite things, one of the characters suddenly has to turn villainous. All this does is just to stretch the yarn that is already worn thin. The opening scene of the movie had taken us to Egypt and the actual discovery of the tomb and the tablet. And there was an old man saying ‘The end is coming’. You thought it really pointed to something big and important. When you finally learn what it was all about, you wonder what the fuss was for. It is the very flimsy theme that plays spoilsport to Secret of the Tomb.

However, one must admit that it is fun to be with old friends again. Octavius and Jedediah are a

funny pair to watch, Atilla is huge but adorable, Sakagaeawah is adorable and Robin Jackman as Presiden Roosevelt (boy won’t we miss him) is perfect as ever. And, there is a new Neanderthal named Laa who is attracted to the night guard at the British Museum. How can we forget Dexter the capuchin, the very life of the franchise. And, Ben Kingsley gets a couple of scenes as the Pharaoh and pulls off a couple of funny lines with ease. You will also be amused by the Hugh Jackman (or Huge Ackman as he is mistakenly called) cameo.

It is the familiarity with characters, that feeling of meeting very close friends again that keeps Secret of the Tomb afloat. Funny situations and exciting moments per se are really lacking in this third installment of the franchise, all thanks to a wafer thin plot. But, you might still find yourself smiling, and occasionally laughing, and also hoping that a fourth movie is made, only this time with a better plot.

 Familiar friends make you smile!

2/5

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES

This is quite an emotional one to write for a Tolkien and Peter Jackson fans. For all we know, this could be the last time we see Middle Earth and its diverse beings on screen. Of course, we are not ruling out a reboot of the two trilogies, but the iconic status achieved by the Lord of the Rings would give almost any director cold feet if he thinks of reinventing it. So, here we are, the last of the 6 movies on Middle Earth, The Battle of the Five Armies.
As with all other Middle Earth movies, this takes off right where the last one left, when Smaug the dragon flew towards the city to teach the meddling dwarves a lesson or two about his invincibility. Thorin and his followers are crestfallen as they watch from their city under the mountain. The city goes up in flames and there is no hope against the wrath of a fire breather. But there is still a spear and a dragon slayer who has lived under the pain of having failed once. This time he finds his mark and Smaug falls to his death. The dragon is gone, the dwarves have their kingdom back, Thorin Oakenshield is king under the mountain. Everything is alright, better than ever, or is it?

With Smaug gone, the mountain city is open for takers, as much for its strategic importance as for the

immeasurable treasures. Middle earth converges on the mountain city and as more and more claimants make their way into the fray, what starts off as a battle of honor between the elves and the dwarves turns out to become the Battle of the Five Armies!
The Hobbit trilogy has the same arc as The Lord of The Rings trilogy. It is about a wandering heir finally returning to his throne. If it was Aragorn in the first trilogy, it is Thorin Oakenshield in this one. Peter Jackson can be trusted with making a visual epic that is fitting of the world that Tolkien created. The magnificence of the battle scenes, the awe inspiring landscapes, the cringe worthy orcs and all that makes Middle Earth immortal are brought out very effectively on screen.

By now, we are so familiar with the characters that we have a kind of bond with them and it is difficult to judge the character arc or development of anyone impartially; one because we like them and two, because they are characters well established earlier in the trilogy or in the earlier trilogy itself. Gandalf is not much of an enforcer in The Battle of the Five Armies, he is mostly an onlooker as things unfold around him. The main perpetrator is the ‘burglar’ Bilbo Baggins, played in a very nuanced manner by Martin Freeman. He manages to look cunning, gullible, vulnerable and courageous at various points in the movie, occasionally adding a dash of humor. He has been the life of this franchise by and large, and he does the job in the final installment too.
It is difficult to write an objective review of one of the most loved franchises of all times. So, I recommend that you go and catch this one in theaters to see Middle Earth one last time. Everyone has agreed that The Hobbit trilogy has not matched up to the magnificent standards set by the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The reason for this I feel is that Thorin Oakenshield, the main protagonist of the trilogy, has not been able to establish the emotional connect with the audience that Aragorn managed to. The Fellowship, and bonds of friendship that were forged, between Sam and Frodo, between Pippin and Merry, and between Aragorn, Gimli and Legolias could not be recreated here, which is why for all the visual grandeur and magnificence, The Hobbit trilogy could not anchor us emotionally. The love story of Kili and Tauriel manages to touch a chord, but it is snuffed out.
It has to be mentioned that The Battle of the Five Armies uses 3D technology in most effective

manner seen in recent times. It is one of the rare movies over the past couple of years which looks like it has used 3D with a purpose, not merely as an enhancement in a few shots.
The Battle of the Five Armies ends on a very sweet note, taking us all back to the point where the journey began, nearly 14 years back. The point where Gandalf knocks on Bilbo’s door in The Fellowship of the Ring. It is farewell to one of the best franchises we have ever seen, and that is a good enough reason to watch it.
A visually splendid emotional farewell to Middle Earth!
3.5/5

EXODUS GODS AND KINGS: Review

What are the challenges in making a movie out of a story that everyone knows? The visual language, the character arcs and the emotional knots have to be perfected so that the audience stays in the present frame without wandering ahead to the already known conclusion. The challenge becomes even greater when the said story has already been made into a movie, one that went on to become a timeless classic. Yes, whenever anyone attempts to make a movie on Moses, there are bound to be comparisons with The Ten Commandments, one of most widely watched movies ever. How does Exodus distinguish itself from its extremely admitted and revered predecessor?
There is an attempt to present Moses as a great warrior of Egypt who left behind his life of conquest after he grew too tired and also found love. But one feels that a lot of time is taken up in setting up this basic premise that we already knew anyway. Nearly an hour is taken up in this process which is precious time mostly because of the fact that the actual legend of Moses begins only after this. You feel a bit weary when Moses' actual purpose in life begins.
The story of Moses and The Ten Commandments is not an ordinary one. It is one of the rarest occasions  when God directly speaks to a man to get something done. The mystique of such a happening was beautifully translated into screen in The Ten Commandments, and that is somehow missing in Exodus. While God was just a booming voice in The Ten Commandments, we get to see him in Exodus, but in a very unlikely form, a child. Now, that is an idea that could have worked very well, but one feels it doesn't quite work here.
Not just that, some of the lines spoken by God seem to have too much of vengeance on them, rather than the inevitability of destiny. In other words those dialogues seem to be too much that of a mortal. God seems to have an ego and a temper in Exodus, which might not seem acceptable to many. That feeling might also be attributable to the performance of the child as God. The weight on those tiny shoulders is too immense and he isn't aided by any directorial tricks or techniques. He falls a bit short in some scenes where Ridley Scott should have helped him more. Also, the emperor of Egypt hardly strikes an imposing figure. He looks an insecure man throughout, which is perhaps what was intended.
One gets a feeling that there is a deliberate attempt to keep things real rather than lend an air of mystic. The color patterns and imagery of The Ten Commandments travel transported us to a mythical time and land which gave an aura. Exodus lacks any of that aura. The only time when the visuals have an impact is when a series of plagues hit Egypt. The biggest opportunity to create an on screen spectacle however is totally lost- the cleaving of the Red sea, which is one of the most iconic scenes in world cinema falls flat in Exodus. The chariots as I remember looked more real and fast in Ben Hur than they do in Exodus.
It might seem unfair to compare a movie with such classics, but whenever such themes are handled, these comparisons are inevitable. Exodus handles a story that has a universal appeal and lends itself to great visual imagery and aura. In Exodus, we get a well narrated story but none of the other elements which would have made it a special experience. In spite of Christian Bale's best efforts, the movie remains a linear narrative, not an inspiring experience. We did expect Ridley Scott to deliver something better with such a great tale. In spite of that Exodus is a big effort to retell one of the greatest stories ever and needs to be seen.

Doesn't move or inspire as expected.
2.5/5