The Beekeeper
Word to the wise: if you crime, you must do the time. Unless, of course, you're in The Beekeeper. Then you will die. I mean, all of us will eventually, but those of us in a Statham action movie will do so in a horribly gruesome and spectacular way.
Adam Clay (Jason Statham) is living a quiet life as a beekeeper, renting a barn from a kind older woman, Eloise Parker (Phylicia Rashad). A horrible tragedy prompts Clay to seek vengeance, but is there justice outside the law?
Jason Statham as the main hero is in peak Jason Statham mode. One could mix and match the characters from all of his movies and I would never know the difference between them. However, I ain't mad about it. He found what works for him and he plays it well. Emmy Raver-Lampman is solid as Agent Verona Parker. I think, had the script given her a little more room, she would've really shone. But, for the most part, Raver-Lampman's a good companion to take us through the story. Josh Hutcherson, as bad guy Derek Danforth, never really finds his footing. Mostly, I think this comes down to miscasting and some writing; although, it likely would not have been as noticeable had the ever-reliably villainous Jeremy Irons not been playing his mentor/guide. Toward the end, Hutcherson's portrayal of Danforth works a bit better, but too often it comes off as a caricature of an evil millennial/gen-z-er.
As cool as I find Jason Statham and as impressive as is his ability to maintain a steely-eyed expression for the majority of this movie, I did find a couple pieces of "The Beekeeper" lacking. For example, it's not the mystery of the secret CIA Beekeeper program I mind, so much as the movie purporting to explain it through a pamphlet on bees (literally). Like, okay, cool, but I still feel like I don't understand what you're trying to sell me other than a cool name. It's like watching the first Bourne movie, except the filmmakers are gaslighting you into believing they actually did fully explain Treadstone.
Agent Verona Parker's character turn is another sticking point for me. In the beginning, it looks like she's going to be an emotionally damaged cop out for revenge, skirting the law if that's what it takes to get justice. And, given the inciting incident, that'd be completely emotionally justifiable. At some point though, she resolves to go after Statham's character, in conjunction with the real villains, because, she reasons, nobody should be outside the law. Fair enough, but when did she decide this? It's not that she could never arrive at this conclusion; it's that it just happens and we haven't seen enough of her journey to get there apart from reading the bee booklet (literally).
Frankly though, I don't even a little bit intend to sound as though I disliked this movie. I actually really enjoyed it and my only reason for these couple qualms is that I hope, if there are sequels, they could be addressed.
Visually, it's quite fun to watch. The cinematography is kinetic and the coloring is often toned in yellows and black. Sometimes the writing needs work. Toward the end, Statham's "Clay" fights his way up a spiral staircase and the FBI agents follow remarking something like "a tornado went through here" and I do not think more obvious words could have been spoken. But, but, the fight scenes are...aggressively entertaining to watch (that's probably the best way to describe it and not sound like a serial killer) and indeed, Adam Clay is a tornado FOR JUSTICE (I am the absolute worst).
The quick shots and rapid loss of fingers, combined with the combat choreography sold me on it. I can't pretend I understand what it takes to make a good fight scene (sans solid choreography, gripping visuals, and eventually setting someone on fire), but I can say I was dying a little bit more inside from each progressive fight scene (but like, in a good way where you feel like perhaps yours are the fingers getting sliced off).
Another thing that works in The Beekeeper's favor is the premise. Personally, I don't watch a lot of violent movies. It's often too visceral for me and sticks with me longer than I wish (I watched all three Taken movies in one night and was completely traumatized). But often, the inciting incident in those stories can be hard to relate to. A terrible thing might happen in a movie and we might feel terribly for people in those real life situations, but sometimes, if it's never happened to you or a loved one, it's not so easy to truly hear it.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's impossible for many people to relate to a story where an elderly person was scammed out of their savings by someone taking advantage of their lack of technological understanding and their desire to not be a burden to their family by asking for help.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's impossible for many people to relate to a story where an elderly person was scammed out of their savings by someone taking advantage of their lack of technological understanding and their desire to not be a burden to their family by asking for help. And I can imagine the frustration at catching the people who do this. It's hard not to be sympathetic to Adam Clay's cause for vengeance because who is there to protect those people? Clay is lucky, in a sense, that his journey takes him on a very linear path to the top. For villains in the real world, how many lose a finger, much less see retribution, for their crimes?
Six bucks was very worth it (and roughly the amount of fingers sliced off in this film). I wouldn't really call it a "cause" movie, but it definitely got me fired up about people scamming people. Considering honey can easily catch on fire (who knew??) that's perfect. I suppose, though, good movies do that: say something without being preachy.
What did this movie say? Stop stealing defenseless people's money or so help you, Jason Statham will hunt you down .
Also, save the bees.
Komentáře