Yet another Hollywood movie using animals and not bothering with the most basics of their biology. Why? Because that would require them to break out of their deeply sexist paternalistic world views. A bunch of men get together and write a movie about bees and of course they view all those little hard working insects as male. Who else would be going out working? Well, of course it's females in real bee societies (and that’s not an inappropriate word--they are highly social communal organisms, so it isn’t anthropomorphism to call hives “societies”). There hardly even ARE male bees, much less working and acting as the movers and shakers of bee societies. I know people will roll their eyes--a Hollywood animated feature is not a biology lesson... I have to admit I DO bristle at the biology being wrong for the sake of basic scientific literacy, but that's not my main point. Rather, what bugs me is what it says about the basic assumptions behind mainstream movies—the assumptions of those who make them and of those who consume them--and the patriarchy they perpetuate. Let's stop swallowing this crap! Count the number of strong women in mainstream movies across the board--not a lot there. But at least if you're gonna make a movie about bees, make the works female, for crying out load.

The lack of strong women in films -- or the above bright bulb looking for role models in a cartoon about frickin' bees.

If we're gonna talk about biology of bees - they don't have a momma-and-poppa traditional two-parent monogamous family thing either. And, actually, tho it's only about "frickin' bees", a lot of kids will get imprinted with this movie as to how bee societies work. Maybe it's a mite silly to worry about how it relates to human patriarchy (or maybe not), but it seems to me more important that it relate a little better to actual bees.

"Maybe it's a mite silly to worry about how it relates to human patriarchy (or maybe not), but it seems to me more important that it relate a little better to actual bees."

Just think of all the confused tots out there who grew up to find out that bears don't really make porridge.

What part of fiction don't you geniuses understand?

A better might be (or, bee) that's it's simply a copy of Woody Allen's "Antz" right down to the protagonist being voiced by a neurotic guy from New Yawk. Hollywood has about as much originality as ... well, analogies fail me.

By the way, if you want a movie with a strong female protagonist, rent "Smilla's Sense of Snow," a Danish thriller in which the female lead is the kind of girl who can take two crowbars and knit barbed wire.

It's a turn off. What could be interesting has been shoved down our throats. I'll wait for DVD if ever.

I think dpc61820, above, made valid points. Yes, it's just a cartoon (and a dull one at that, it seems), but what harm would there have been in keeping it correct and having female worker bees? I'm curious if kids would also go in the same numbers to a cartoon with a female protagonist. I think they would.

Anyway, Chris Rock's mosquito better not suck blood, since only female mosquitos do that.

A really egregious biology error occurred in the TV film of Peter Benchley's novel "Beast," which concerned a giant squid terrorizing Bermuda. Benchley's novel was plausible enough. Unfortunately, the movie really failed Bio 101 by having first an immature giant squid terrorize people before being captured alive and then -- get this -- really big Mama Squid showing up to rescue her child and wreak havoc on his captors. (Giant squids lay eggs and swim on with their lives, never again to knowingly encounter their offspring). That was just too much for this giant squid-loving movie watcher.

A really egregious biological error occurred in "Little Black Sambo" when the tigers turn into butter. Although the Kenyan expedition of 1915 records an incident when tigers running around a tree turned into cottage cheese, and Dr. Phonus Balonus of Princeton refers to two Bengals struck by lightning whose charred corpses gave off the unmistakable smell of Pam, no record exists of tigers actually turning into butter. Would there have been any harm in getting this right?

Fame is a bee.

It has a song --

It has a sting --

Ah, too, it has a wing.

But the movie was written by men, so they are going to create characters they know, men. Plus if the protagonist was a female, what exactly would Jerry Seinfeld do, put on a pretend girl voice? It's like when Jennifer Aniston bemoaned the lack of female centered comedies and so people were all then write one, hire someone to write one. Lots of those male centered comedies are written by the comdians themselves.

It's also possible that Jerry and the rest have no idea about bee society or biology.

I have no interest in seeing this film because every damn day it's been the Bee Movie, see the Bee Movie, Jerry shorts on NBC during The Office and 30 Rock and I just wanted Jerry to go away. Thankfully the movie opens and the most I'll see again is Bee Movie #1 animated film, see it today, again!

So "Bee Movie" isn't "Grand Illusion." We're shocked!

I just hope it moves more quickly than "Ratatouille" did. That was a heart-warmer and all, but too talky for the under 8 crowd, which was jabbering and squirming away.

How would you like it if they did "The Lion King" -- mane and all -- and they called it "The Lion Queen"? Sure, it's fiction, it's a cartoon, it's for little kids. But could we maybe TEACH our kids just a tiny bit while we're entertaining them? Hmmm? Otherwise, we'll end up a nation of people who get W as the president, TWICE.

My reasons for not seeing this movie: I'm sick of all the Jerry Seinfeld promos that have been going on for months now. You'd have to pay me a hefty sum of money for me to watch this piece of crap.