The Beekeeper (Jan 24)

Associate
Joined
21 Feb 2004
Posts
1,170
Location
London
Great action flick, with tongue in cheek story. Statham doing what he does best, although accent was a bit inconsistent. 7.5/10
 
Caporegime
Joined
11 Nov 2002
Posts
83,159
Location
Barcelona
I thought it was utterly crap. This is straight to dvd stuff.
Agree.

I'll confess I didn't watch the trailer and jumped straight in just for Statham. Mistake.

Bad acting all over the place with a few dodgy accents chucked in just....because.
Unless I'm mistaken he doesn't even take a single hit till the final 5 minutes.

Ms Huxtable probably had the best acting in she was barely on screen for a few minutes. Jeremy Irons should be ashamed of himself. I never liked Josh Hutcherson, I like him even less after this film. Minnie Driver, just cashed the check and looked amazing while doing it!

The Internet scam thing was quite unique, and I didn't see the President thing coming.

BUT Statham does the thing where he kicks the guy full in the chest and he goes flying forward a total of 3 times in the film, and i'm a sucka for that move! So I'll give it a 5/10, else it would have been a 4.


rp2000
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,493
I thought it was pretty fun - ticked all of the boxes I expected and made me laugh with its knowingly ridiculous dialogue coming from such a ‘hard man’.

“Thanks for putting up with me…

… and my bees.”


edit - my post from the ‘film last night’ thread:

The first cinema trip of the year for me!

Yup, this was pretty darn fun - very lean, amusing… spot on for what it needed to be. Working in a tech company, I did find their representation of that a hoot :p

All characters done well and likeable… nothing really ‘negative’ to say about it. But sure, it did run out of steam slightly as it moved towards its conclusion and there was nothing surprising or groundbreaking. But it didn’t drop the ball either.

I doubt I’ll revisit it but worth a watch if you fancy something light and silly - the whole audience in my showing seemed to have a lot of fun.

7/10
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Posts
12,330
Location
Belfast
Agree.

I'll confess I didn't watch the trailer and jumped straight in just for Statham. Mistake.

Bad acting all over the place with a few dodgy accents chucked in just....because.
Unless I'm mistaken he doesn't even take a single hit till the final 5 minutes.

Ms Huxtable probably had the best acting in she was barely on screen for a few minutes. Jeremy Irons should be ashamed of himself. I never liked Josh Hutcherson, I like him even less after this film. Minnie Driver, just cashed the check and looked amazing while doing it!

The Internet scam thing was quite unique, and I didn't see the President thing coming.

BUT Statham does the thing where he kicks the guy full in the chest and he goes flying forward a total of 3 times in the film, and i'm a sucka for that move! So I'll give it a 5/10, else it would have been a 4.


rp2000
Forgot he was in the movie, didn't understand the need for his character at all.
Ohh yea and the appalling Taken style fight editing, god that is lazy. They don't understand Wick is so popular is because they actually did fight choreography and proper stunt work. Saying that Statham has been in so many films lately it really shows he committed to none of them.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2003
Posts
5,529
Location
Bedfordshire
Anything "Sky Original" and I'm already expecting a low quality product, but as it featured and was produced by Statham I had to give it a go.

The writing was bad, typical B-grade acting and cgi. Unrealistic expectations on the hero in fight scenes, a leading character who should not have been in charge of the situation due to personal connections. If this was straight to streaming it would have been a good film in comparison to some of the stuff Netflix produces. Entertaining but could have done with more production behind it.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,914
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
The writing was bad, typical B-grade acting and cgi. Unrealistic expectations on the hero in fight scenes, a leading character who should not have been in charge of the situation due to personal connections. If this was straight to streaming it would have been a good film in comparison to some of the stuff Netflix produces. Entertaining but could have done with more production behind it.

So it doesn't sound like its worth spending the money going to the cinema to see this then. I was tempted initially (like a bit of mindless "Statham doing Statham things") but the trailer had that "Straight to DVD" feel, which I rate even worse than "Straight to Streaming", and I wasn't sure if things like the terrible CGI (data centre explosion) came from a low budget, lack of time or just a "chuck it on screen!" laissez-faire production.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2003
Posts
5,529
Location
Bedfordshire
So it doesn't sound like its worth spending the money going to the cinema to see this then. I was tempted initially (like a bit of mindless "Statham doing Statham things") but the trailer had that "Straight to DVD" feel, which I rate even worse than "Straight to Streaming", and I wasn't sure if things like the terrible CGI (data centre explosion) came from a low budget, lack of time or just a "chuck it on screen!" laissez-faire production.

Think it's on par with the later Transporter films. I don't regret seeing at the cinema and wasn't disappointed as I've seen far worse, but I'll see most things.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jun 2005
Posts
3,068
Location
The South
The scammer concept is kind of interesting but the whole storyline and execution is woeful, and there's some pretty shoddy acting from some big names. It basically ends up being terrible as a 'completely switch your brain off and ****-out to fight scenes' film and absolutely horrendous for a Statham film. This should be up for a Golden Raspberry.
1/7 bananas
mNGK5TR.png


What i couldn't understand is why it was more difficult for Statham to take down the head Navy Seal/Delta Force guy than it was for the new Beekeeper considering Beekeepers are supposedly better and more lethal in every way :confused:
 
Associate
Joined
21 May 2008
Posts
1,219
Location
Lincs
Im honestly really dissapointed with this movie, the cast is generally awful and the story is just ridiculous in general, I mean really, POTUS kid is the main bad man, and a moron too!. For me, not a good Statham action flick

AVOID AVOID is my advice!
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
1,386
This was REALLY bad, some of those, "leave your brain at the door" action films are fun, this wasn't, it was just ...... boring.

I watch quite a lot of films, I turned this off after 35 minutes or so which I hardly ever do, it was just terrible. Bad characters, limp story, unrealistic behavior and action scenes, it was just a very poorly made film.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Dec 2002
Posts
23,337
Location
In a cowfield, London, UK
The acting from all of the other actors let it down. Only the old lady and Statham seemed to put any effort in for what it's worth. Great action, but everyone else felt like they were a B-movie character. I'd give it a 6/10.

FBI agent's mum just died? Not a single shred of emotion shown etc.

It's like the director was trying too hard to make it like a Korean style gritty violent action thriller, but only the Koreans are capable of such feats. Crank is about as ridiculous as Hollywood has ever gone and still kept everything enjoyable, inc the acting.
Couldn't agree more. It's just an excuse to make a bad John Wick clone imo.

So much forced swearing too, it's just very unrealistic. Don't get me started on every character except for the old lady being very poor.

5/10
 
Back
Top Bottom