Flixens: Movies, DVDs, TV, comic books and pop culture for women. The boys shouldn't have all the fun.

Ian Fleming's licensed-to-kill superspy James Bond is back in both his first and his latest adventure in Casino Royale, the reboot of the venerable film franchise that shows no sign of mellowing with age.

It seems as if each time a new Bond film comes out, the nay-sayers reiterate how Bond has become an anachronism and that his adventures have become old hat.  Daniel Craig's debut as 007 will be the main reason that people go to see the movie, I'm sure.  I'm happy to report that Craig fills out the tuxedo quite nicely, thank you, dare I say even delivering the best Bond since Sean Connery?  At least, I think he's closer to Fleming's original character than Pierce Brosnan and certainly Roger Moore... rougher than either but smoother than Timothy Dalton.

The plot of the film is relatively straight-forward and uncharacteristically low-key.  After earning his 00-status and his licence to kill (after fulfilling the 2-kill prerequisite which we've all seen in the trailer, James Bond is assigned his first mission, which takes him to Madagascar to capture a bomb-making terrorist, played by real-life "freerunner" Sebastien Foucan.  Simply put, freerunning is the art of running as fast as you can, avoiding all obstacles in your path as gracefully as possible, and Foucan is the inventor of the sport.  His talents are put to incredible use in the film's first big action sequence (there are only three).  I've never seen anyone move quite like Foucan before, and the sequence is both thrilling and mesmerizing.

Bond sort of blunders the mission and earns the disdain of M, played once again by Dame Judi Dench.  Trying to set things right, James teams up with Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), one of Her Majesty's Treasury agents and eventually gets involved in a game of high-stakes poker in Montenegro with Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson), a global money-launderer to various terrorist organizations who just so happens to be gambling with his clients' money.  James' hopes to beat Le Chiffre at his own game in order to leave the villain no safe purchase in the world except with MI6's interrogators.

If you are familiar with the story, then you will know there are some twists along the way, but nothing you won't see coming down Fleet Street.

For the most part, the film succeeds in its mission.  As I said, Craig makes a great Bond, the locales are gorgeous and places we will never see otherwise, the stunts are physical (Craig may be the most bloodied and bruised Bond yet), and the story is interesting.

The film falls apart in its final act, which suffers from "LOTR Multiple Ending Syndrome" and just about grinds to a halt before the 3rd and final action piece.  At 144 minutes, it's about 20 minutes longer than it needs to be, and could have used some judicious editing to keep the momentum going.

Long-time fans may be upset to see Texas Hold 'Em being played instead of Baccarat, or by the absence of Q and his gadgets and Miss Moneypenny, or by the jumbled timeline of Bond's first mission with the M who replaced a previous M, but it is nice to see Bond back in his Aston Martin again (sorry BMW), and there are some nice moments related to previous Bond traditions, i.e. his response to "Shaken or stirred?" is perfect.

Oh, and it's a Columbia Picture, so get ready for the Sony product placements that we've all come to know and despise.  The film is loaded with them, although I was honestly surprised that the PS3 wasn't a major plot point.  There may be hope for Sony yet.

A while back I saw an early trailer for Flushed Away that, while funny, looked horrible.  The CGI animation looked years behind anything that we've grown accustomed to over the last few years, and it seemed as if Aardman Animations first foray into a CGI feature film was a bit of a misstep.

Well, I'm happy to say that my initial misgivings were ALMOST unfounded.

The plot is relatively straight-forward.  My man Hugh Jackman voices Roddy St. James, a well-kept pet mouse, living a posh but lonely life in a nice London townhouse.  While his "family" is on vacation, Roddy gets invaded by Sid, a sewer rat up from the depths of London's underbelly, who immediately makes himself comfortable in Roddy's domain.  An effort to flush Sid down the "whirlpool" backfires, and Roddy finds himself swept down into the sewers, where he meets an entire city full of mice, rats, frogs, slugs, and other icky creatures far beneath his stature.

Roddy soon crosses paths with Rita, played by Kate Winslet, a plucky Lara Croft-type mouse who's being chased by some thugs of The Toad (played by Ian McKellan who has clearly been spending too much time with Patrick Stewart) regarding some jewels.  Roddy's desire to be with company overrides his fear of getting his hands dirty, and soon he's off on a rollicking good adventure.

Flushed Away ends up being an amusing tale, full of the charm that we've come to expect from the British studio that gave us Wallace & Gromit and Chicken Run, although I'm afraid a lot of the humor will go right over the heads of most American audiences.  There's a subtlety to Aardman humor that is easily missed, which is one of the reasons Chicken Run did so poorly, despite the fact that it's a terrific WWII prison camp escape yarn.

The other problem with the humor is that it is distinctly British.  For someone who grew up with two brothers constantly spouting off Monty Python skits, it's not an issue, but again, I think most American audiences will find it as over their heads as London Bridge.

The CGI, while much improved from the original trailer, still looked a bit odd in places.  I think this was due to a conscious effort to make the film LOOK like it was being animated using clay figures and stop motion.  This was semi-successful.  I think the animators were having a hard time with this concept, as the effort is uneven.  It's most noticeable in the movement of the character's mouths, which had a distinct stop-motion look to them for the most part, but other movements were a bit to fluid and CGI-ish.  It's hard to describe, but it's one of those things you'll notice when you see it.  What's cute is that the CGI models actually do look like clay, with subtle thumbprints and pits and dimples here and there.  If you watch the credits, you'll see a number of people attached to the project as "surfacers."

The voice acting is solid, with Hugh even getting a chance to sing like we all know he loves to do.  Bill Nighy and Andy Serkis have a nice "Mutt-n-Jeff" chemistry in their scenes together as the thugs, and Jean Reno as Le Frog is the butt of some great jokes about the French.

There's a running gag in the film with the little slimy sewer slugs providing the sound effects and music that never gets tired, and is even used all through the closing credits, and is just so darn cute and whimsical.

Keep your eyes peeled for a TON of sight-gags as well.  The London underbelly scenes are loaded with them.  This is one of those films made for DVD where you can freeze-frame and catch everything.  Look closely for a humorous wardrobe gag early in the film when Roddy is looking through his closet of doll clothes for something to wear.

Regular readers of this site will know that I have said in the past that I HATE Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. It's one of those esoteric things I can't quite place my finger on... whether it's the overdone Broadway wannaba score by Danny Elfman, or the kitchen sink chaos of the Halloweentown scenes, or the general attitude of co-dependent goth teens who love the movie and seem to be saying "look at me! I'm different because I love Tim Burton!"... I don't know... so many reasons to choose.

And do you know who I bet hates it even more?  Henry Selick.  Because HE'S the guy who directed it but no one remembers that.  They only remember Tim Burton.

So when you are the mother of three, you see a lot of movies that you know you won't like... you do it for the children.  Because they don't know any better.

So it was that I finally gave in and took the young-uns to see the 3D re-release of Tim Burton's double-holiday extravaganza.

And do you know what?

I STILL hate it.

BUT... The Movie MILF is here to tell you... if you like this movie, and you know who you are, then I can happily tell you with mirth and joy that the digital 3D release is THE way to see this movie.  I dare say that it was the way this film was MEANT to be seen.

I'm not going to bother with an in-depth review of the movie itself.  You've probably all seen it.  Chris Sarandon plays Jack Skellington (except for his singing voice, which is Danny Elfman's), the Pumpkin King, who's tired of Halloween and wants to do something different, so blah blah blah he ends up doing Christmas with severed heads and haunted gifts and then Santa sets everything right and Jack learns that what he was looking for was really inside him all along.  End of story.  The whole thing is stop-motion.  If you like Tim Burton, then this film is a pre-requisite to get into the Goth section of Hot Topic.

But I have to tell you... the digital 3D made ALL the difference in the world for me.  It made this movie actually bearable.  I somewhat even enjoyed it, and that's saying a LOT.  I was continually amazed at the difference that the addition of depth made for this film.

One of my biggest complaints with the stop motion techniques used in this movie in the past was that the sets were so bizarrely intricate and there was so much happening on screen in every scene, and none of it with that subtle hint of motion-blur that we've been spoiled with in CGI animation, that it was hard for my brain to process the information.  Maybe it was just me, but the darn thing always gave me a headache.  Join that with the incessant choral chanting of "Halloween! Halloween! This is Halloween!" over and over and I'm ready to tear my own brain out to end the madness.  Thank God for Cosmos.

But with this new third dimension, suddenly every scene is given the proper focus, no pun intended.  You're able to view the scene as the animators saw it and the sets are actually quite gorgeous in this new format.  The "kitchen sink" effect isn't so bad anymore, now that your brain can focus on foreground and background elements properly.

The digital transfer was rock-solid, and I never realized just how colorful the film actually is.  The DLP dramatically improved the 3D effect as well.  I was not impressed with the 3D in Superman Returns, even though I saw it in the IMAX format.  Like Superman, Nightmare was not originally filmed in 3D and has been converted using a painstaking digital process that maps 2D elements to 3D geometry.  It's crazy, but it works... I don't know if they had more time to do it for this movie or what, but the difference was night and day.  You would never know that the film was not originally shot in 3D... it's THAT good.  Perhaps even the best 3D I've seen to date, and I've seen a LOT of 3D.  BIG thumbs up for the effort there.

The score has been given a nice digital overhaul as well, at least that's how it sounded to my ears.  While I'm still not a big fan of the music (it's just SO the "Danny Elfman Show" saying "Look at me! Look at me!"), the choral singing was much more distinct and I could actually make out the lyrics in the big group numbers.  Stereo effects were well-done and immersive.

So... if you HAVEN'T seen the film in 3D yet, give it a go.  It was a great experience, which, as I said before, is saying a LOT because I still hate the movie.  But I liked it.  Go figure.

Oh, and some woman behind me knew ALL the lyrics and sang along with every song.  If by chance, that was you and you are reading this, I HATE you.  HATE YOU HATE YOU HATE YOU!

If you are already a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's Kazakh journalist, Borat, then I probably do not need to do much convincing for you to see the film adaptation, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

I have always been slightly ashamed that Borat's spell has always worked effectively to make me laugh, but the film has removed that shame and replaced it with some embarrassment. It is, however, undeniable that Borat is one of the funniest films I have seen in many years, but still there is some depth and insight for those that want at least a little social commentary.

If you were planning on watching this film, you don't need to read the rest of this review. Borat is extremely entertaining, and I am giving it a 4-stiletto score.

If you are still reading, I would like to begin by stating that I did not need very much convincing to see this film, as I had been anticipating it for quite some time. I was originally introduced to Borat by my friend and source of much geek information, Sofiane, with whom I went to see Borat.

As I reported on some of the marketing for this movie, I had feared that too much of the movie was being revealed in the hilarious trailer (see HERE). My fear turned out to be true for the first half of the film, which is only one hour and twenty-five minutes long. Nevertheless, even in the first half there are still some surprises, and the funniest moments of the entire film have not been spoiled in any way by the trailer. Since watching that trailer, I had been avoiding any other marketing materials, but I was sad to see that they were trying so hard to spread the hype around Borat. I am certain that in North America at least, people must have been getting sick of the over-marketing.

There is not much in terms of a story, and the film is largely made up in the same style as the various Borat sketches that have been made for Da Ali G Show, but I think that director Larry Charles deserves praise for successfully putting together such an entertaining film. It is the mark of confidence in a director, in my opinion, when he or she can take a cult phenomenon such as Borat, and remain unobtrusive in his or her approach. The result is a genuine piece of work that will certainly not disappoint the fans, but will surely attract new ones among those who discover Borat through this film.

Sacha Baron Cohen delivers a terrific performance as the Kazakh journalist, and it is truly impressive to see him remain in character when placed in some riotous and awkward situations. Cohen is joined here by Ken Davitian as Borat's producer, Azamat. This is the only other fictional character in the film, and their adventures across America bring about not only some painful funny moments, but some truly frightening, and in a couple of other cases endearing moments.

The music is very much in tune with the general whimsical mood of the film, and is largely composed of gypsy music. I noticed several bits of music from Goran Bregovic, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s brother, Erran, composed all the original music used in the film. It is very suitable to the tone of the film, and perhaps not very noticeable, but in the first minutes it helps to put the viewer in the right mood.

One of the major difficulties of any comedy, even some of the funniest comedies of the past few years, has been to make a story that is not formulaic. It seems that the stories are always strung together with the focus being made on the various gags or jokes in a comedy (with some exceptions of course, notably Shaun of the Dead). In Borat, there was really no attempt at doing such a thing, and this decision was perhaps not very difficult to make since it adds to the genuineness of the film, and also because the gags and interviews themselves are diverse and strong enough to work without much added padding. This lack of pretentiousness in putting the film together also fits very nicely to the unpretentious Borat, and the candid approach taken through the character in general exposes the ugly aspects of some of the people that were "interviewed." When watching the film, it could be interesting to see which people turn out to be the most amiable toward Borat, but the aggressiveness or ignorance of others is chilling.

Since the story is virtually non-existent, it can be quite difficult to judge this film. Nevertheless, its saving grace as a film is that what little story there may be comes to a glorious finish, an end that is truly shocking and hysterical.

His name a Borat, he like you. And you will like him.

Hi everyone, Nina here with a quick review from our favorite UK-er Dougie, who was kind enough to send us a review of Guillermo del Toro's latest film, Pan's Labryinth.  We've all been looking forward to this one, and Dougie says it does not disappoint.  Too bad, considering that it would have been cute to say "Dougie Pans Labryinth!" if he didn't like it.  Oh well. Read on!

Remember when you were young, and because your parents were no good at remembering bedtime stories, they'd make one up, to try and get you to sleep. Remember how they always had huge plot holes, no real flow to the plot, and unimaginative characters. After watching Pan's Labyrinth, I kind of wish Guillermo del Toro was my dad.

It's Spain, 1944. a young girl (Ivana Baquero), her pregnant mother and strict stepfather move to the  countryside. Captain Vidal (Sergi López), the stepfather, has been posted there to rid the area of rebels. Upon exploring her new home, young Ofelia discovers an ancient labyrinth guarded by a faun (Doug Jones), who sends the girl on a life-changing quest.

How good a story is that? And, as an added bonus, none of my relatives or friends play badger versions of themselves, like the made-up bedtime stories I was once told.

I've been looking forward to this film for some time now, and was not disappointed. Scene after scene, the movie is simultaneously mercilessly cold, and strikingly beautiful. Even during the darkest  parts, del Toro's love for his project warms the screen.

And let me assure you, its a dark, dark film. There's extreme violence in Ofelia's real world, and when she attempts to enter the magical land through the labyrinth, she is constantly confronted by gruesome creatures that would be better suited in a trip to Narnia fuelled by the type of nightmares experienced by eating a lot of cheese right before bedtime.

Doug Jones is back as del Toro's bitch, excellently playing both the faun (Pan, himself), and The Pale Man (who you should never trick into a hi-5). With Jones returning for the Hellboy sequel, he really becoming the Serkis to Guillermo's Peter Jackson. I wonder who would win in a fight between the two. I reckon Serkis, if only because he seems like a biter.

My one real problem with the film is that I don't speak Spanish that well. I have to rely on the subtitles (under no circumstances should this film be dubbed), but my eyes kept drifting from the text, to the on-screen action, meaning I often missed out on what could be an important piece of dialogue.

If only I had a babelfish....

Just as great a movie as I had hoped for, everyone go see! Five fauns out of five for Del Toro and his wonderfully twisted, dark little bedtime story.

Beowulf, Robert Zemeckis' digital adaptation of the classic 9th-century Anglo-Saxon poem is set to hit theaters November 16, 2007, debuting day-and-date in over 1000 Real D theaters as well as other large-format 3D screens (i.e. IMAX), making it the largest 3D release ever, says the Hollywood Reporter.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty excited for this film.  To be honest, I haven't been a big fan of Zemeckis since his Back to the Future days, but I do like his "damn the torpedoes" approach to digital filmmaking.  Plus, it will give me a chance to actually see what I should have read in high school, but didn't.  I expect that Zemeckis' motion capture technique, will really be able to bring this story to life in a way that the Cliff's Notes never could.  I mean, I know the basic gist... Beowulf, the great hero, chops off a monster's arm and then kills the mother.  It SOUNDS exciting, but reading Old English just isn't my cup of tea.  Wasn't that what the Canterbury Tales was written in?  Although I remember some of the boys in my class laughing that Chaucer talked about farting.  Who knew?

The script is from Roger Avary and Neil Gaman, so how can you go wrong there?  Plus, there will be NO digital Tom Hanks, with his dead, soulless eyes, like in Zemeckis' CGI Polar Express.  In fact, apparently this film will use a technique called "electrooculography," or EOG, where the performance capture involves placing tiny sensors around the actor's eyes to catch tiny eye movements.

AND I'm excited to see Angelina Jolie show off her monstrous and vicious motherly instincts as well. You just KNOW she has them...

Oh, and if you're curious to know if you live near a Real D theater, check the map.

I was in the shower this morning, thinking about the trailer for Borat.  Don't ask.  Anyway, I was chuckling to myself about the cinematography, how the camera pans around to reveal cows here and there, and the general editing of the trailer as an overall piece of hilarity.

Imagine my surprise when I open up my inbox to find a Borat review from our favorite UK correspondent, Dougie, who heaps lavish praise upon the film....

"It is the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

Comedy is becoming overcrowded, with just about anyone getting the chance now to say "I want in", and getting a spotlight, as they try to entertain. More and more, comedians feel they have to cross that line in order to get the recognition and fame they feel they deserve. To some extent, it works. Comedy films can get the box office figures it wants by running a trailer for the film with the same old joke thats been on the silver screen for decades, but putting it in a different situation (I'm on to you, Wayans brothers). I don't want to see the line of taste or moral decency stumpled across, with visibile effort. I don't want pointless controversy. I want a film like Borat.

Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan follows Borat, the best journalist in his country, on his trip to America, where he intends to study the American way of life, to make Kazakhstan a better place to live. Although only meant to be filming in New York, Borat decides to cross the United States, filming his report, while in search of his new found love, CJ Parker (Pamela Anderson, on an episode of Baywatch on TV in Borat's hotel room).

To reveal almost anything else about the movie would spoil it immensely, but I found myself laughing so hard, almost non stop through the movie, that my head hurt. I was never really a huge fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's characters, be it Ali G (who's already been in an almost forgettable flick), Borat, or Bruno. I always preferred the Borat sketches, but never considered it must-see TV.

The film, however, allows Cohen to let his character loose, in some of the finest physical comedy I've ever witnessed (Lee Evans/John Cleese/Michael Crawford standard), and say things I'm almost certain will be cut before the general cinema relase on November 3rd. In the space of 5 minutes, Borat manages to say things that would easily offend women, men, children, any person of any colour, and even animals. But what's the difference between Borat using the term "chocolate face", and the racist cop in this years Little Man? I think it's because you're constantly reminded that Borat is speaking with pure innocence, he is obviously a fish out of water in the culturally diverse USA.

Contrary to my expectations, the film does have a real story arc to follow, which is does so with great ease. It can't afford to be complicated, as you'll be too busy laughing at the bear in the ice cream truck to take anything else in.

I was fortunate enough to get hold of six tickets for this screening. I gave two to my sister, who is a teenager. I went with one of my friends (I'm a twentysomething and he is in his 30's), and I gave the remaining tickets to my parents (late 40's and very early 50's). Each of us had different exposure to Borat on TV, from my sister's friend the devout fan with all the merchandise, to my parents, who had only heard of him on Radio 4, being labelled as disgusting and perverse. At the end, a simple survey decreed Borat as the funniest film of the year (and funniest film ever, according to two members of the survey). I was quite impressed that this film appealed to people born in five different decades. It's a simply tremendous film. 5 out of 5, 10 out of 10, 100%, five stiletto's, however you want to say it.

I can see why the Kazakhstan Government are so unhappy about this movie, despite it being completely obvious that the character of Borat is an extended parody of a stereotype. I started this with a quote from one genius of comedy, and want to end with that of another, which I hope those who find Borat to be in poor taste, can appreciate

"In the end, everything is a gag."
- Charlie Chaplin