Larry, since the first film, has been the same exact character. I just think there's a certain fatigue that goes along with playing the same character three times over with minimal in the way of actual progression. The thing about Stiller, while he does have some moments, is that, for the most part, his performance is really uninspired and phoned in there. I suppose that if you ever want to drag this series' corpse back to life for a quick payday with another sequel, then Rebel Wilson can star in it and I would be 200% fine with that. Rebel Wilson could've also had that effect if her role was more important. I mean it's not like his character makes the film good or anything, but he did make it better than it would've been without him. I've only seen Dan Stevens in fairly serious movies, though The Guest has some darkly comic moments, so his ability and great timing at playing a goofier type of comic character certainly surprised me.
Dan Stevens, as Lancelot, was also quite entertaining. Rebel Wilson is hilarious and she's great here, even if she's relegated to a minor supporting role that in no way affects the "narrative". One positive about this film is that there are some welcome additions. They've cornered themselves into this niche and there's no way to work around it that wouldn't 'betray' everything some people have come to know and love from this franchise.
You can ONLY do the same goofy shit you've done since the first film, only adding some new characters each time out. I mean the title pretty much gives it all away. Then again, it's not like you can actually do anything different with this franchise.
Repeat the same joke over and over again and it loses its effectiveness. But while the story may differ from film to film, this essentially remains the same shit as before.
Night at the museum 3 in hindi free download mp4 movie#
I think I liked the first movie because it was fairly new concept at the time and it was, while not a good film by any stretch, somewhat charming and cute. While this film is a definite improvement over the second movie, it's not like it's that much different from the other two films that came before it. It's not like the world was really clamoring for a sequel, but they went ahead and made one because why not? Well I doubt that was really the reason as I'm sure the monetary rewards outweighed the fact that the series, in spite of everything it can do with historical figures, was creatively stagnant after the first film. It's a way to close out a fairly successful franchise on a high note, at least by the series' standards. I get why a sequel to this movie was made.
0 kommentar(er)
