The Party Of Choice
Connect with us on social media:
  • Home
  • Get To Know Us
    • What is Conservatism?
    • What Do We Believe?
    • Tyranny of the Majority
    • "Tough" Issues >
      • Abortion
      • Gay Marriage
      • Marijuana
    • Conservatism, Free Thinking, and a Central Vision
    • Invitation
  • The Eyes of One
  • Videos
    • Choice Words That Win Videos
    • The Refinery
    • Radio Interviews
  • Articles
    • Movie Reviews
  • Sponsor an Ad
  • Unite The Right
  • Events
  • Store
  • Resources
    • Talking Points from Grassroots Radio Colorado Show
    • Petition
    • spOILed The Movie - Time to Fill Up on Truth
    • Flyers
  • Contact Us

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb   by Andy Peth

12/19/2014

15 Comments

 
Picture
First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.  
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging. 0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-
Conservative.  3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.  
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity.  5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Quality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 star

Oh my, my, my, where do I start?  This was a dreadful movie.  Just tragic.

In its first couple scenes, “Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb” portends an interesting third act in the series.  The magical tablet will be explained.  The museum will offer new and exciting exhibits, complete with living galaxies performing overhead.  Cool stuff!  And familiar characters will go out in one last comedic hurrah, complete with Robin Williams offering his final words of wisdom and pose of inspiration (which, though brief, was the movie’s highlight).


This started pretty well, and could have stayed that way.  But then, unfortunately, come several mistakes Hollywood often commits in final installments:


• Forcing Agenda – Two of the most beloved characters from this series are the miniature Roman Centurion Octavius (played by Steve Coogan) and his equally diminutive Cowboy partner, Jedediah (Owen Wilson).  But now, surprise!  Octavius is gay!  And he’s attracted to Jedediah!  And to other guys, too!

Sure, call me a prude.  But gay characters work fine in movies where they matter to the plot—come to think of it, ALL characters work best this way.  For instance, Greg Kinnear’s gay character works well in the Jack Nicholson gem, “As Good as it Gets.”

But a gay Octavius is just cringe-worthy, and the audience responded accordingly.    As his comments became more revealing, the crowd fell into awkward silence.  Children, parents, grandparents, teenagers—whether liberal or conservative, none seemed to enjoy having an agenda gratuitously shoved at them during a holiday movie.

It didn’t work.  And the insulting part?  Hollywood doesn’t care.

• Tedious Gags – Timing is everything in comedy.  Too quick, and people don’t get it.  Too slow, and the crucial element of surprise is lost.  But if you really want to blow it, here’s how:  Take familiar slapstick or dialogue—the kind your audience knows from previous films—and unleash it slowly, dragging out scenes with well-worn schtick for a couple extra minutes each.  Now the audience is neither surprised nor amused.  They’re not even bored, as they passed that point several lines ago.  Now, they’re angry.

• Tired Performances – Ben Stiller, in the lead role as Larry Daley, looks far too serious during much of the show.  In other supposedly funny moments, he seems irritated with the routines.  The late Robin Williams (Teddy Roosevelt) also looks weary, though in his case it’s justified—this material was beneath his abilities.  Ricky Gervais (Dr. McPhee) holds up well, but he’s given little to do.  Rebel Wilson’s character (a British security guard named “Tilly”) is inserted for laughs, but the jokes fall flat or miss altogether.  The only saving grace, temporarily, is Dan Stevens as “Sir Lancelot.”  He’s funny for a while.

• Weak Problem Resolution – Okay, spoiler alert:  The whole plot revolves around fixing a magical tablet that gives life to all the museum exhibits.  Seems it’s decaying—quickly.  I won’t bore you with the path by which our heroes find an answer, but here’s the upshot:  All the tablet needed was moonlight.  No, seriously, that’s it.  Moonlight.  Wow.  That’s pretty hard to find in a series of movies where all the action occurs…AT NIGHT.  That’s like saying, “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but we can only save your goldfish by adding water.” 

There’s a cheapness to this solution.  “Raiders of the Lost Ark” would have rung hollow if Indiana Jones found Lost Arks on clearance at Walmart.  “Rudy” wouldn’t have inspired us if, after all his failures making Notre Dame’s football team, he discovered the magic of steroids.  Moonlight? Moonlight?!  My goodness, read from a sacred text or something!  Toss some virgins in a volcano! Have Obama issue an executive order!  Do something!


Then again, I have a better solution:  Do nothing.  Don’t make this movie.  Don’t roll out disinterested actors with unrelated agendas and agonizing comedy sketches.  Just don’t do it, Hollywood.

15 Comments
Eblan
2/8/2015 08:35:13 pm

Comment deleted

Reply
Andy
2/9/2015 09:00:01 am

I enjoyed your comments, though they’ll soon have to be deleted due to excessive profanity. I’d do that to anyone, but you’ll apparently assume it’s because you’re gay. Feel free to resubmit your comments with fewer F-Bombs, and I’ll gladly leave them up.

First, you clearly state you sought out the article because Octavius shares your sexual preference, and then you ignored everything else in the article. And yet, you claim I’m the one who is close-minded, and somehow “homophobic” (took me a while to stop laughing at that one).

Never mind that I support gay marital rights, gays in the military, gay anything—as I’ve often written, I don’t want my beliefs to be your laws. I just retired from a place I worked for 11 years, and my best friend there was a gay liberal. I’m a Conservative Christian. We joked that we were from the two most hated groups in existence. But of course, I must be unaware that “People of different sexualities are all around” me (more laughter).

You say no agenda was forced into the movie, but of course it was. On what planet does adding homosexuality to Octavius’s character in the final installation of this series add anything whatsoever to the plot? I accurately described the audience’s response, and you were offended—“I can’t deal…”—and yet you say I speak out of offense. Classic hypocrisy. You’re the one freaking out due to your intolerance. I’m the one critiquing a lousy movie that happened to include an added agenda. If Octavius had suddenly become an Evangelical Christian and started trying to convert Jedediah, I would have mocked it—but hey, I must just be a hater.

You claimed to be offended at my saying, "But gay characters work fine in movies where they matter to the plot," but you purposefully left out what followed: “—come to think of it, ALL characters work best this way. For instance, Greg Kinnear’s gay character works well in the Jack Nicholson gem, ‘As Good as it Gets.’” No surprise there. People who are purely agenda driven like you will always omit pieces to skew the facts. Sheesh.

I could say so much more, but I’ll close with this: You say I’m holding back a world where “We're trying to make this a (bleep) place of acceptance.” Then, you later close your comments by wishing for my death. Ummm…

Acceptance? Acceptance? You’re about as accepting as the Gestapo. You know, it’s hilarious; we both represent groups that are executed in the Middle East. In this country we’re supposed to be equals, but clearly that isn’t good enough for you. You’re too driven by agenda; too ready to equate disagreement with hate. Newsflash: If you can’t value people who disagree with you, then you don’t really value people at all—you only value agreement with you. And if you only value agreement with you, then THE ONLY ONE YOU REALLY VALUE…IS…YOU.

Reply
tori
3/25/2015 01:08:58 pm

Honestly, you people like to pretend that Octavius "wasn't gay in the first place", when Roman soldiers almost ALWAYS had a male lover. Historically, Octavius may have very well been gay! You don't know because any attempt to create representation in a medium for LGBT folk is seen as "pushing an agenda!!!!1!", even when it's not only historically accurate, but when you DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE STRAIGHT ROMANCES THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT.

Bones
9/27/2015 01:24:24 am

To Romans being gay was actually thought highly of as men were seen as superior therefore doubling that was seen as perfection. It was also thought that it made them fiercer warriors when they fought to protect a male partner than a female one.

Personally I thought it was adorable and it made me feel like I am accepted and that my 'species' (as it seems to be viewed?) is REAL.

By the way Jedediah and Octavius are actually a couple.


And aside from the fact that that I'm part of the LGBTQ category and also adore them as a couple, I thought that octavius' gay commentary was hilarious! "His hypnotic blue eyes" and followed by Jed's jealousy xD

Reply
Bones
9/27/2015 01:31:48 am

While I am not Christian or conservative I still respect (assuming you are the owner/co founder of this site, Andy) that you are not being a major @** about this and I also respect the other messages on the site. Especially the one about bigotry.

Dani
8/11/2016 12:13:21 pm

My thoughts exactly

tori
3/25/2015 01:08:45 pm

Reply
Andy
3/25/2015 01:53:38 pm

Tori, you're exaggerating. Some Roman soldiers had gay lovers, but many didn't.

The point is, you're adding an element to his character that didn't exist in the first two films, whereas I'm taking his character as presented. You're inserting your agenda, I'm taking the art at face value.

As for the LGBT agenda, I couldn't care less if a character is gay. In this case, however, the character was only portrayed as gay in the 3rd of 3 films, and it was obviously meant to surprise, since it even surprised the character's best friend. Do you deny this?

Furthermore, if the filmmakers weren't pushing a previously hidden "agenda," then why didn't they mention this major theme change in any of their advertisements? C'mon, Tori--tell the truth on this one. They clearly concealed it in the first two films and then the ads for the 3rd film IN ORDER TO KEEP SALES HIGHER FOR A HOLIDAY KID FLICK, KNOWING THAT SALES WOULD HAVE SUFFERED FOR SUCH A FILM IF THEY HAD BEEN HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT.

They lied for the money, Tori--and you champion their cause! And yet, you have the nerve to accuse me of some anti-LGBT bias--again without evidence. Tori, you do a lot of judging without evidence for someone complaining about intolerance.

Reply
Gay and tired
4/20/2017 04:40:52 pm

1) "Only portrayed as gay in the 3rd of the 3 films" lol did you miss the brokeback mountain quote in the first film?? "I will never quit you"

2) A character's sexuality shouldn't have to drive the plot in any way, it's literally just a character trait like eye colour

3) Gay characters don't exist for propaganda they exist for representation

4) A Jed and Octavius romance may not be "necessary" per se but neither is it necessary for them to be straight. Also where was the necessity in the hetero relationships a) Teddy and Sacagawea b) Larry and Amelia c) Mindy and La d) Even the dinosaurs???

Scott
7/20/2015 02:17:18 am

I agree with the author of this post. I was floored when I heard the gay stuff coming from Octavius. It was a major distraction and what I consider a major production blunder. Someone screwed up on this one.

Reply
Elise
9/15/2015 04:33:22 pm

You guys are so...Argh! There is nothing wrong with this movie, Can't you just pick on something else? So what if Octavius is Gay, I mean sure it doesn't effect anything besides the surprise of the audience but It's not hurting anything either! To dislike Octavius being gay is to Dislike A Girl trying to be Girl! What I'm trying to say is that Octavius is Being himself, As where in other movies no chances had occurred for him to Speak about anything of that sort. In this film there were many chances to Hold hands, Si don't even start with all that. I can't even believe you brought it up! Just because it doesn't please /You/ Doesn't mean that the movie wasn't interesting to others. I, Personally, Wouldn't allow people like you (The publisher) To even write on my site!

Reply
Dani
8/11/2016 12:22:25 pm

Exactly! Thank you

Dani
8/11/2016 12:21:05 pm

How did Octavius being gay ruin the movie? If anything it made it better. The way he kept complimenting Sir Lancelot's eyes or kept trying to hold Jed's hands. It was adorable and hilarious. Almost like he didn't even mean to be doing it and I loved every second of it. It made the movie my favourite one out of the series. Unlike most movies, it didn't ignore the LGBT community. It's almost like it forced homophobes to like a movie with adorable gay undertones and it was great

Reply
Ash
12/28/2018 12:44:25 pm

Okay so, let me say my piece:
Before I begin, let me tell you that I myself am a lesbian- and pretty damn open about it. I also happen to have studied Roman history for six years now, both in college and on my own.
When I saw the first movie, I immediately got attached to Ockie. He's kind of the reason I became obsessed with Roman history in the first place. A role model, you could say. I loved the evolution of relationship between him and Jed more than I loved anything else. It was a beautiful friendship in my eyes. Which is why when I saw the third movie I was a little shocked.
I'll put it simply: I don't think Octavius is gay.
I have a few reasons for this statement, but the first one is historical. Sorry to burst your bubble, but homosexuality was punishable by death in the Roman army. Sorry. I'm not the type to soften history for an agenda. On top of that, the historical Octavius, also known as Augustus, had three wives- one marriage was for business, the other two were for love. He was also known as quite the womanizer as a young man. So that rules out the history argument....sorry.
Now, culture. Cultural speaking, shows of affection or flattery were not uncommon between two males, both in the Roman times, and in cultures today, such as Arabic cultures and Asian cultures (also, the argument about how Roman men were always kept together and thus formed relationships is complete bull. Sorry. Not how that works.) For the Romans, friendship was one of the most valuable relationships you could have with someone. Physical contact between straight men was not uncommon or unheard of. Hand holding for the Romans, Arabs, and Asians has multiple meanings. And, let's be honest here- no matter which way you swing, is there really anything more comforting than holding someone's hand when you're about to die? Toy Story 3 had a circle of hand holding, for crying out loud! It's a manner of human contact with many reasonings behind it. Hell, I've seen two straight people of the same sex sit on each other's laps before. It's whatever someone is comfortable with.
Which brings me to another point- cultural taboos. Okay look; we've come a long way since the movie came out. We're learning now that we have many different ways of expressing ourselves. There's definitely a stigma between men and women that shouldn't exist. Now, I don't have much say in this, but I can tell you what I see between straight people a lot; touchy women. Women get away with so many more taboos than men. Straight women can cuddle, hold hands, and most importantly, compliment each other. Which leads me to the Lancelot issue.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with noticing someone who is good-looking. Hell, I like chics, and I'll even admit that Lance is a fine male specimen. For Romans, and many other cultures, actually, noticing one's physical traits were normal. Physical beauty was seen as a good thing and praised. It could even be used in choosing one's company. So Octavius' compliments about Lancelot aren't really fair indicators of anything. If a straight woman can call another woman beautiful, why can't a man call another man handsome? There's a difference between being able to point out someone who's good-looking and acting upon it. I have a best friend who's straight and does the same thing. He practically swoons over Chris Pratt, but is engaged to his girlfriend of seven years. It happens, guys. We need to stop labelling what people say as "gay" and what not. It's hurtful to everyone. Take me again, for example. Like I said before, I think Lance is a fine male specimen. If I were to call him handsome, that wouldn't change the fact that I'm attracted to women, now would it? So why should it be any different for a man?
Now, the actor Steve Coogan himself. He's British, and I love the guy. Probably one of my favorite actors. If you're familiar with his films, then you'll recognize the fact that he uses a lot of "gay" comedy- even his straight characters. Around the World in 80 Days, for example. His character, Phyllius Fogg, has an innuendo dream (while dressed as a woman) in which he's supposedly having sex with another man. He verbally says while dreaming, "Please, please, you must go- my husband will be home soon." By the logic your using, that's FAR more questionable than anything Ockie did. And yet, Fogg still ends up with a woman by the end of the movie. It isn't uncommon for Coogan to give his characters seemingly "gay" innuendos. (Keep in mind Coogan is straight, too.) A lot of movies feature things like that, including the one he did not long ago, Ideal Home. Which I think was a flop- it was all stereotypes and no substance, but whatever. My point is, this is the type of humor Coogan uses in a lot of his movies.
We can look at other characters for this argument, too. Take Bender from Futurama. He's borderline obsessed with Elzzar the chef. He's even called him

Reply
swamphed
9/1/2022 02:52:10 pm

If you have issues with romances that dont drive plot, might i interest you in literally any other romance in the franchise, like Teddy/Sacagawea, Larry/Amelia, Tilly/ Laaa, and especially Larry and Dexter at the end of this, and you show no issue with any other couples? so you decide to criticise LGBTQ+ characters? Tell me you’re homophobic without telling me you’re homophobic energy right here

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    CHOICE Movie Reviews

    Our Conservative movie reviews provide Quality, Political, and Moral/Religious scores, complete with Andy's commentary.

    Archives

    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly