The Beekeeper (2024)

The Beekeeper (2024)

3/10

 Starring

Jason Statham

Emmy Raver-Lampman

Josh Hutcherson

Bobby Naderi

 

Directed by David Ayer

The Beekeeper is a Jason Statham action film that delivers exactly what his fans have come to expect: intense fight sequences, implausible feats, and a lot of over-the-top bravado. However, don’t let its flashy presentation or the actor's star power fool you this movie falls short in almost every other aspect.

The dialogue is painfully bad, often feeling as though it was cobbled together by chance, like letting a monkey loose on a typewriter, rather than intent which you will expect from a prolific film writer. The script’s overuse of bee-related terms like "bees," "beehives," and "beekeeper" is relentless and eye rolling. They shoehorned these words into almost every conversation, which then made you feel like screaming and making the movie look silly, repetitive and unintentionally comedic.

The film plot is not manageable, and the execution is laughable. The plot is centered on retired "beekeeper" Adam Clay (played by Statham). In this world, beekeepers are elite killers created by the U.S. government to handle covert or unmanageable situations. Adam, now retired and tending to bees in solitude, is drawn back into action when his friend and neighbor tragically takes her life after being scammed. This sparks Adam's quest for vengeance as he hunts down and takes out those responsible. The premise, while promising some emotional stakes, fails to deliver due to poor execution.

The action sequences are classic Statham, he strolls into a room full of men with guns, and suddenly he has the ability to dodge every bullet and take down everyone with absurd ease. While entertaining at times, the sheer invincibility of his character renders most conflicts predictable and, eventually, tiresome.

I understand that he must be a top-notch unstoppable guy, but there is a point when it started to look ridiculous. It got to a point where his replacement (someone supposedly as good as he is and should be able to stop him) was dealt with, with ease, like pushing over a crying two-year-old.

The movie’s serious tone clashes with its outlandish narrative, making it difficult to invest in the story. Even moments that should feel climactic or emotionally charged are overshadowed by the nonsensical plot and poorly written characters. Despite this, the film seems intent on setting up a sequel, hinting at even more outrageous antics for Adam Clay in the future.

In the end, the film sets itself up for a second part, with many more insane things for Statham’s character to do. With the kind of money it made from the release, I believe a second part will not be far away from production.

Damsel (2024)

Damsel (2024)

 

5/10

Starring

Millie Bobby Brown

Ray Winstone

Nick Robinson

Shohreh Aghdashloo

Angela Bassett

Robin Wright

 

Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

 

Damsel is not one of the most impressive fantasy films I've seen. While the story lacks depth and sufficient plot development to fully immerse viewers in its premise, it partially redeems itself through the tense play-hunt scenes between the dragon and Elodie (Millie Bobby Brown). Unfortunately, the pacing is uneven, and much of the film drags, making its short runtime feel longer.

Millie Bobby Brown is the standout element, her compelling performance and dedication to the character bringing much-needed life to the movie. Her portrayal of Elodie makes the film bearable, showcasing her strength as a leading actress.

The special effects are average, and while the film picks up once Elodie enters the dragon’s lair, it struggles to maintain momentum. The film’s plot is spread over the length of the film (to create a surprise feel), but I will give you a brief of what the Queen of the land where the dragon tortures shared.

The dragon she said has been terrorizing their village and killing its people, so the king went to the dragon’s lair to confront it with his men. The dragon killed them all as you would guess, but spared the king and made a deal with it, which is to revenge the attack on her lair by killing all the king’s daughters, from one generation to another.

So, if you have seen the trailer of this film, you already know how Elodie found herself in the dragon’s lair. If you have not seen the trailer, I will not share it here in case you want to be surprised on how she got there.

Once she was in the liar, she was in the dragon’s game of play hunt. The dragon has been doing this for generations to all the girls who are dropped in her lair. She chases them and allows them to think they can escape, then when she is tired of the taunt it catches them and burns them alive.

Elodie was lucky, when she was to be burnt, someone caused a distraction, something which has never happened since the dragon has been on this hunt of all the girls dropped in the lair. Elodie was able to get ahead of the dragon, which is the first time something like this has ever happened to the dragon.

Damsel ultimately falls short of being memorable. It’s an okay film for a casual watch but difficult to recommend wholeheartedly.

Michael (1996)

Michael (1996)

3/10

Starring

John Travolta

Andie MacDowell

William Hurt

Bob Hoskins

Robert Pastorelli

 

Directed by Nora Ephron

 

When I was much younger and saw Michael, I could not fully understand or pinpoint what was off, but I knew the film didn't have the same impact I expected from a John Travolta movie.

I blamed it on my younger self's inability to fully comprehend the film, but now, as an adult, I can confidently say that Michael is one of the most pointless films about an angel I’ve ever seen.

Are you seriously telling me that the archangel Michael is so jobless that his mission on Earth is to make two people fall in love? Is this really the most important task in his divine agenda?

Now that the two of them are in love, it did not solve world hunger, or bring about world peace, just two new lovebirds, who if they have children will add to the growing overpopulation of the world.

The story is so disjointed and lacking any cohesive elements that I can’t fathom how I let my sister convince me to rewatch it. She didn’t find it entertaining either, but she insisted on seeing it because, as children, we were both huge John Travolta fans.

So, what exactly is Michael about? Well, for anyone lucky enough to have missed this film, here’s a quick rundown:

Michael follows the archangel Michael (played by Travolta), who descends to Earth to help an elderly woman with her problems. At the start, two well-known journalists from the National Mirror are tasked with getting Michael to Chicago. When they finally meet him, they quickly realize that Michael has other reasons for being on Earth, and he specifically chose to travel with these three individuals. Along for the ride are Frank and Huey, the journalists, and Dorothy, a woman who their boss claims is an "angel expert."

Upon meeting Michael, they are shocked by his behavior and the way he speaks. Michael is staying with the woman he’s come to help, and despite his divine status, he decides to accompany them to Chicago.

Instead of flying, Michael insists on a road trip, refusing to have his picture taken until they reach Chicago. The rest of the film follows their journey, revealing that Michael, though an angel, harbors personal desires and intentions beyond simply helping those in need.

Michael’s actions and mannerisms during the trip aren’t intriguing, but rather borderline irritating. Their stops along the way seem nonsensical, as Michael’s decisions defy any logical explanation.

It felt like watching a horny angel trying to sleep around.

Avoid this movie at all costs if you value your sanity and probably your innocence.

Ladyhawke (1985)

Ladyhawke (1985)

 6/10

Starring

Matthew Broderick

Rutger Hauer

Michelle Pfeiffer

Leo McKern

John Wood

 

Directed by Richard Donner

 

I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. Although it didn’t fully capitalize on the swordplay and sorcery combination, it managed to deliver an entertaining adventure romance, with twists and turns that I did not expect at all. I appreciated how the film kept some secrets, only revealing them halfway through.

Matthew Broderick brought the comedy, with his wisecracks hitting home at just the right moments, while the rest of the cast were more serious and handled all the adult stuff.

Visually, the film was enjoyable, and the cinematography stood out. However, its story prevented the film from becoming a classic and achieving major box office success at the time. Still, it was worth the time spent watching it. It was like the movie was tethered by its own need to have a masterful twist, that it never fully took off.

Set in medieval times when the church held power through the fear of God, the film takes place in a land called Aquila. The story revolves around two lovers who are cursed. The curse is in the form of keeping them apart. The curse makes sure that neither can see the other in their true human form.

Parallel to this, we follow a thief named Philippe Gaston (Broderick), who accidentally falls into a hole and uses the opportunity to escape his dungeon on the day of his scheduled execution.

The bishop, displeased with Gaston’s escape, sends the captain of the guard with a team to hunt him down and kill him. Gaston, however, takes his escape for granted, only to find himself celebrating in a bar, where he accidentally runs into the captain and his men disguised as regular patrons. After being caught, Gaston is rescued by Etienne of Navarre, the former Captain of the Guard of Aquila.

Etienne’s appearance causes a stir, and he helps Gaston flee. He takes him along on a mission to get back to Aquila, where he has unfinished business with the bishop.

Through the journey the movie makes you loose focus of somethings, when Gaston meets a woman, who always happen to be around when Etienne is not. Then Gaston learns more of the curse which were on these lovers, and who these lovers were and how he can be able to help them break the curse, and in the end gain revenge on the Bishop.

I enjoyed the film so much that I plan to watch it again.

Krull (1983)

Krull (1983)

 

2/10

 

Starring

 Ken Marshall

Lysette Anthony

Freddie Jones

Francesca Annis

Directed by Peter Yates

 

Krull is a perfect example of a good idea gone wrong. It begins with a prophecy about a future savior, planting a seed that the film will involve some kind of time jump, only to never deliver. This makes the introduction feel pointless. Set in a distant galaxy, the planet Krull is invaded by aliens, and the visuals, considering it was made in the 80s, are impressive. However, the story is so absurd that it’s difficult to understand how anyone thought this would work on screen without some serious rewrites. The plot is so poor that it distracts you from noticing the acting done by the actors who tried to make the best of what they are given to work with.

The plot centers on a princess, whose child is supposed to save the world. But as quickly as this plot point is introduced, it is discarded. The princess is kidnapped by the alien leader, though the film never makes clear why. The kidnapping happened when the princess and a prince were to marry to unite their kingdoms. The battle that ensues in the wedding kidnap is a massacre, as swords are utterly ineffective against laser guns. Miraculously, the prince survives the attack, though this is without any backstory or real emotional investment in the character.

So, as you can guess the prince has to go save the princess. We are then introduced to a mysterious character known as "the Old One" which to me is a stupid name. He gives no explanation about who he is, but his purpose seems to be the one to guide the prince. He did this using vague hints that are confusing and offer no real substance. What we know is that, the prince is to follow him to get information on how to save the princess.

Along the way, they meet several other pointless characters, each adding nothing to the story. One group of bandits, who inexplicably joins the quest, are convinced by the Old One’s nonsensical speech.

The film continues in this manner, with random events and characters being thrown in without explanation, leaving viewers to wonder how any of this is connected. The plot feels like something a child might dream up during a long afternoon of daydreaming. As much as the visual effects try to carry the film, they can’t make up for the lack of coherence and logic in the narrative.

Watching Krull felt like wasting valuable time, as I struggled to understand how such an incoherent script could ever be considered worth filming. Even re-reading this post, I can see how incoherent it sounds, but this is the movie plot.

I couldn’t help but feel a sense of depression knowing I had spent part of my life watching this film.

Dragonslayer (1981)

 Dragonslayer (1981)

5/10 

Starring

Peter MacNicol

Caitlin Clarke

Ralph Richardson

John Hallam

 

Directed by Matthew Robbins

 

I don’t quite know what to think about this film. It wasn’t boring, and while some characters could have used better development and depth, I didn’t feel the need to stop watching.

If I compare the effects to what I remember from my youth, I can honestly say the visuals were classy and held up well for a film from the 80s.

The movie created its hero in a unique way, and the villain’s eventual fate is something you definitely won’t see coming. As the story develops, you’ll come to appreciate how it all unfolds.

Every character in the movie leaves an impression, each with their own presence. But it’s impossible to guess how each one will contribute to the dragon's eventual demise. The plot’s unpredictability keeps you on your toes.

The story begins with the last sorcerer, Ulrich of Cragganmore, practicing magic alongside his apprentice, Galen Bradwarden. They’re approached by a group led by Valerian, asking for their help to save Urland, a land terrorized by a 400-year-old dragon named Vermithrax Pejorative. Ulrich agrees to assist, but his apprentice tries to talk him out of it, citing Ulrich’s age and health as obstacles. Despite the doubts, Ulrich sets off with them.

Before leaving, one of the king’s captains accuses Ulrich of being a fraud and questions his abilities. Ulrich, decided to allow the man to test his abilities, he called Galen, gave him his wizardry amulet and present himself to be tested.

How Ulrich (after being tested), with Galen’s help, was able to get to Urland and together, they confront the dragon are a series of events that unfold in ways you wouldn’t expect. Their quest is one of discoveries and surprises, and the ultimate fate of the dragon is something worth experiencing firsthand, so I will not drop spoilers here.

While the movie didn’t quite achieve box-office success in 1981, it was still an enjoyable adventure, with special effects that were a breakthrough at the time. It was the first film outside of Lucasfilm to use ILM (Industrial Light & Magic) for visual effects, earning an Academy Award nomination for Best Visual Effects. Unfortunately, it lost to another ILM film from that year Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana Jones).

I’m not sure if this movie should be considered a classic in the dragon genre, but it’s certainly a fun ride and worth watching, especially if you can overlook the fact that the effects are from 1981.

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023)

 Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023)

3/10

Starring

Jason Momoa

Patrick Wilson

Amber Heard

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II

 

Directed by James Wan

 

I do not know what this film was meant to be, but 'interesting' is not one of its qualities. It is boring and very hard to enjoy, as the film itself seems to be breaking all forms of continuity, and the story it is riding on seems half-baked.

Time wasted on building a brotherly bond, jokes that never seem to land, and the film wants so badly to be an action-fantasy comedy, but the comedy makes you yawn in disappointment.

I felt the first Aquaman (2018) was okay, but this sequel is boring to the max, and you can see very much that they cut off Mera (Amber Heard) out of the film as much as they could.

Jason Momoa's lack of comedy awareness or good landing is more of a problem with the writing than the actor himself. I have never been able to see him do comedy well, but when the story and crafting are well done, and all he needs to do is deliver the lines, he should be able to get it right.

The film starts with Arthur Curry (Aquaman, played by Jason Momoa) trying to live a normal human life as a father. Spending half his time on land and the other half running Atlantis as their king. We then see David Kane, who is trying to get himself together, fix the Black Manta armored suit, and go after Arthur in revenge for his father in Aquaman (2018).

David’s quest leads him to discover a trident that was crafted by the king of the lost kingdom. The trident overpowers David’s will, and even though killing Arthur and his family is still the focus of David, the trident wants to use this goal to free the king and the people of the lost kingdom.

This is the 15th and final film in the DC Extended Universe (DCEU). As Warner is planning a reboot of the entire franchise, which will be run by James Gunn, it will be called the DC Universe (DCU), which will kick off with Superman: Legacy in 2025

I wonder how the new DC Universe will play out with reboots of all the characters, and we can see if James Gunn can create around him a team that will match what Marvel has created in the MCU. I do not have that much faith in their capabilities, but I am very curious to see the films of the new universe.