Did those three lines ruin the movie or was it already bad?
The movie was already bad, the lines just added insult to injury. The movie compared to the original was plodding and slow.
It was bad. Sappy. Sentimental appeal to previous. It was a “reunion” sequel. Main character has left the honorable job at museum to become a millionaire hawking silly products like glow in the dark flashlights. At the end of the movie, he finds himself, regaining his honor by taking the job at the museum. It also implies that he gave all of his wealth to the Smithsonian.
It was just plain stupid. Should have stopped with the first one.
Already bad IMHO. The first one was fun and funny. This one, not so much. About the only redeeming value here was the skin-tight pants on Amelia Earhart. :-) I thought they were particularly unfair to Gen. Custer - making him out to be an incompetent boob. Sure, getting your entire command killed is bad. But did the man not have a successful career up to that engagement?
In the last couple of weeks I've been to the new Star Trek, the new Terminator, and the new Museum movies. Of the three, only Star Trek was worth it IMHO. Terminator, maybe worth it on DVD as a rental. Museum, skip it.