Reviews

The film's narrative hinges on outlandish scenarios and unbelievable action, often veering into unintentionally humorous territory due to its sheer absurdity of specific sequences.

While films, even those with mature content, can offer immersive experiences, 'The Beekeeper' falls short. Its graphic elements ('18' UK, 'R' US) juxtaposed with its stretched plot create a tonal disconnect that alienates its intended audience, leaving viewers unable to suspend disbelief.

While the film delivers the genre's requisite action sequences, the plot struggles to maintain credibility, often indulging in exaggerated scenarios that feel more amateurish than polished

Stepping out of a well-crafted movie is like emerging from a captivating dream, your mind buzzing with the story's echoes. Sadly, "The Beekeeper" left me thoroughly indifferent.

Trailer looked intriguing, but the film was a letdown.

As an avid science fiction fan, I was disappointed by the many plot holes and inconsistencies in this film. Good science fiction is based on a solid foundation of real science, with a touch of imaginable extrapolation. This film was 5% fact and 95% nonsense, and it was impossible to become immersed in the story.

Here are just a few examples of the film's many unbelievable elements:

Two massive vehicles, larger than the forest clearing tractors in Avatar, are used to clear a village. But when soldiers jump out of them, they are immediately killed. Why did they jump out in the first place?

A soldier runs in a straight line towards a group of enemies behind a barricade, firing his weapon. The members of the group protected by the barricade are shot, but the single running soldier is not hit once. How is this possible?

A character's oxygen runs out in his vacuum suit, and the warning system displays the levels "low," "dangerous," and "critical." The character can now hardly breathe or move. But then, miraculously, he is able to get around for another five minutes. How?

A non-armored vehicle is shot by a group of soldiers with automatic weapons, but not one round impacts the seven passengers. The vehicle then continues on as if nothing had happened. This is simply not possible.

At one point, a robot is unable to kill a human because "as a robot, they are unable to harm humans." Yet other robots are doing the exact opposite throughout the film. This inconsistency is never explained.

A man jumps off a boat missing an arm, but in the next scene, he is holding onto the underside of the boat with both arms. How did he get his arm back?

These are just a few examples of the many plot holes and inconsistencies in this film. While it may be enjoyable for younger viewers who just want to see special effects and explosions, it is not a good film for those looking for a well-crafted story.

Was recommended this and having watched the trailer I thought "nah". It looked dated, even for 1997, it didn't seem very dynamic, nor especially engaging.

Indeed, the first part of film dragged in a few places, but in hindsight all leading up to developing the meat of this meal.

Without knowing the specifics, the ending was guessed, but even the ending had a twist I didn't see coming.

Slow start, grey mid-section, and the last half-ish really pulled together to provide almost edge of seat ending.

Brilliant photography, fascinating subject, but oh my goodness, slow, slow, slow.

Naration is long, drawn out and a little child-like in the delivery. The narrative also puts forward opinion more than fact regarding behaviour.

More like emotional story telling. Polar opposite of Attenborough style.

I'll admit I've never read Well's text, but do know Wayne's production rather too well. Even Spielberg's Tom Cruise version carried more translation, and certainly a better script with entertainment, even though I'm not a fan of the movie.

Episode One The trailers enticed me, and this episode showed promise. The content seemed to parallel the story as I knew it. The period setting worked well and by then end of the episode I was actually looking forward to episode two. However, this episode was marred, in my eyes, by two major issues; the first was the typical 'soap' back story and the unnecessary flash-forwards that broke continuity.

Episode Two I was sadly left rather disappointed. More soap opera scripting, increasing story-disrupting flash-forwards, and a general tedium. Enough of the negatives to leave me thinking I wouldn't bother with the third and final episode.

Episode Three Having watched the first two, perhaps the final would pick up and deliver a satisfying ending - nope. Long scenes lacking in progression. Repetition of themes. Weak scripting. Terribly long-winded and ultimately boring.

Some novel and thought through ideas, e.g. the heat ray being invisible apart from a heat-haze (shimmering and distortion of the air along the path of the ray). But it lacked some of the most poignant aspects of the Jeff Wayne's; Carrie, Nathaniel and the Thunder Child.

If you're an avid fan of the musical version - avoid this, a candle compared to a star.

Blade Runner (1982) was for me an absolute classic. I was enthralled the first time, and have seen it many times since, including the morning of the day I watched Blade Runner (2049) in the afternoon. The whole 'feel' of 1982 conveyed something original. The 1982 Vangelis sound track is superb and creates the perfect ambiance, the cinematography is dark and surreal, and rain is just ever-so- slightly featured! Sure, 1982 has the odd 'cheesy' 1980's content as viewed now, but back then the whole was utterly brilliant.

Die-hard fans of the original will appreciate the huge amount of careful detail that has been brought over from 1982. It is very obvious how much effort has been made to re-create the same atmosphere. Sadly, 2049 just doesn't quite make it. The film contains an unmistakably firm nod to 1982 (eye at the start, city, rain, dark, cyclists, road crossings, electronic billboards, 'Chinese' culture, etc.) but despite significantly better imaging quality and technology, doesn't quite communicate the underlying grim portrayal of the 'grime' of 1982.

I will also say that unless you know your 1982 narrative and characters there will be large amounts of 2049 that you'll either simply not notice, but more frustratingly, simply fail to comprehend. Unlike, for example, I Robot (2004) that stands alone as a complete film (you don't need to be familiar with Isaac Asimov), 2049 relies to a large extent on the 1982 premise. The film does start with several statements that attempt to contextualise the circumstances, but for most non-1982 fans these statements won't help that much. There is a 'story', but those who don't know 1982 will most likely struggle to keep up with it.

1982 moved along at a reasonable pace, well, at least engages throughout. However, 2049 is very much laboured. I love Sci-Fi, I'm a huge fan of 1982, but I actually found myself yawning during some parts of 2049! Overall it's worth a watch, especially as you get 'value for money' - almost three hours long! Soundtrack is great, not a patch on the original, but still firmly of the same genre.

Would I watch it again? Not paying, no, on TV in several years, maybe. As a sequel it disappointingly fell short.

A solid script that moves with sufficient pace to maintain engagement yet lingers on details without losing interest. This film uses narration in a way that almost becomes peripheral - you are focused on the drama yet the voice-over adds depth and explanation without distraction. An ultimately feel-good film that takes you though a gut- wrenching narrative. One of the few films that contains unwholesome language and content in a manner that seems 'natural' and not simply for effect (Billy Elliot is a classic example of such a film). No matter your favourite genre, if you haven't seen this then put aside any preconceptions and be prepared for thorough entertainment.