musanna-ahmed

To start with - the technical side of filmmaking. The Ice Age series has always excelled in providing amazing visuals and this one doesn't disappoint. The use of 3D is brilliant, almost enough to restore my faith in the dire format, with credit going to the blocking choices for the characters (if that exists in animation) - they are often propelled into situations where the camera angle would turn to have them move towards the camera, creating the intended three-dimensional 'pop out' illusion. To add to the enjoyment of the visual side of the film, the new animals have been pleasingly designed by the animators.

And on an artistic level of filmmaking, the screenplay is unfortunately missing the wit and subtle humour that made the original film hilarious. The comedy is powered by visual gags instead. Some may find this disappointing but with the state of comedy films this modern day that manage to sell, it seems visual gags are what cater nicely to the target audience which is children. However, I give credit to one of the screenwriters, Jason Fuchs, who has helped script a feature film that does manage to entertain at only 24 years old. But when a film works with visual jokes rather than a script for comedy, it doesn't make one too excited about the prospects of the people behind the camera. Maybe the reception of Continental Drift can help Fuchs work on his next piece though.

Satisfying voice acting is featured in the film, I was in fact surprised that Drake and Nicki Minaj performed decently. The show-stealer was Wanda Sykes who voiced Sid's granny - she was an exception to the aforementioned visual/verbal joke argument as her greater comedy asset was undoubtedly her voice. For the record, it was ironic how Peter Dinklage voiced one of the largest pirates.

It's inevitable that the question "Is it better than it's predecessor(s)?" will be asked about Continental Drift. Well, whilst none of the sequels have been of the same quality of the original, I choose to only compare this one to the last one and the answer is yes, mainly due to the subtext of the story.

It revolves around the animals getting captured by pirate animals and doing their best to turn the tables on them. This could be interpreted as a message about how us humans, represented here as the animals, are capturing animals for our own self interest without any real sympathy. I'm no animal activist but I can safely say this is a relative approach for the filmmakers to go for - also considering as number three was about dinosaurs which have no relevance this present day - because the amount of environmental groups wanting for us to save these animals is of a large amount and ever-growing animals are becoming abused, unwanted, and abandoned by some of us. So on the socio-political level of filmmaking, Ice Age 4 has a good reason to exist.

All in all, Ice Age: Continental Drift is an entertaining addition to the series. Whilst it still proves that the series could have only gone downhill from the first one, it has a sufficient amount of reasons to be recommended to the target audience, children and fans of the series alike. Plus Scrat is still as entertaining a character as ever.

I will not spoil the ending but can say that it could be looked at as sequel bait but arguably, the series has gone long enough and I predict that a fifth film will really take its toll on it but time shall tell.

It has more brutal action scenes than Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. It has a female lead hotter than the one of Battle: LA (in fact, Michelle Rodriguez is probably the best actress who Gina Carano can be reasonably compared to) who provides a better leading performance than Zoe Saldana in Colombiana. And it is boasting a better cast than Cowboys and Aliens - Haywire is arguably the best piece of filmmaking in the action genre in recent memory.

This could obviously be expected by Steven Soderbergh, still one of America's most consistent directors. His film has a brain and utilises it and this experimentation of the action genre is a unique one, especially in the superbly engineered action scenes. He has avoided to use background music as an intensifier and it works, giving the action scenes a very high level of brutality as every fist impacting the human body is heard. And he has avoided the shaky cam technique as an intensifier simply because there's no need. It's brutal enough without the standard exhilarating background music.

The stellar cast of this action picture have rewarded his direction with brilliant performances, Gina Carano in particular as aforementioned. They empower the story of a gutsy, fearless, ass-kicking woman determined to avenge herself even with a loss of trust for anyone willing to take her side after the double-crossing and the small amount of genuine help.

The plot itself is told in a disjointed way which is honestly a criticism to be made of the film because I believe that it will leave several people scratching their heads for some time during their viewing experience. But if you can get your head around it, and should really be able to once you complete the pieces of the puzzle, you will have experienced an intelligent action thriller from an intelligent director. A great start to the new year.

Watch it if: you like new takes on genres; willing to view something with a brain (especially if you just saw something stupid like New Years Eve recently); are a fan of Steven Soderbergh and his smart direction; looking to begin your 2012 cinema experience with something good. Don't watch it if: you expect something on the same scale of blockbuster action as MI4/Sherlock Holmes 2.

There is a good reason for why My Week with Marilyn exists except for to document the making of The Prince and the Showgirl in cinematic quality. I've seen a lot of females 'like' a page on Facebook which is titled a quote from the star herself – "I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve my best." In the land of Hollywood where, as some say, relationships are portrayed unrealistically in the motion pictures because they create unrealistic expectations for men to expect in women (and perhaps vice versa), it's refreshing to watch a love story that has a chance of being calamitous because of the character of Marilyn Monroe. She was known for her many affairs and this film offers the audience to visually view one. The story was first written in print – we are told that the source of the film is Colin Clark's memoir The Prince, The Showgirl and Me, unread by me but a man sat in the same theatre stated to me after the film that this adaptation is very faithful to Clark's memoir. So those of you who have also read it, I believe you will be in for a treat.

And of course, this isn't just a story of one of Marilyn's many affairs. It is a riveting look at the experience of working in a different environment in Britain, alongside Sir Laurence Olivier, undertaken by her. This is a story which is empowered by the intriguing binary opposition created in the narrative, the classic binary opposition of love versus hate, where tensions boil and relationships sour. Good dialogue is crucial to make this work and screenwriter Adrian Hodges achieves this by writing a good screenplay, which, as aforementioned, is faithful to the source material too.

Another aspect of the filmmaking which proves to be powerful in helping achieve the universal aim of being a good film for My Week with Marilyn is the acting on display. It is very likely that the word "Oscar"/ the term "Academy Award" will be included in a lot of movie reviews this season and mine here is no exception – Michelle Williams is well worth of an Oscar nomination for her bravura turn-in here as Marilyn Monroe. She embodies the many sides of the icon's persona, from her singing talents to her desire to her problems with anxiety and self esteem to her attitude towards love when in a relationship. For all the screen time she gets, Williams basically becomes Marilyn Monroe.

The rest of the cast deliver solid performances too in their respective roles as other real figures. Those who have been watching Branagh's career would have expectations pre-seeing the film that he is an ideal actor for portraying a historical figure and he doesn't disappoint as the legendary Sir Laurence Olivier here. Eddie Redmayne deserves credit for his portrayal of Colin Clark – the same man who told me about the film's faithfulness of the book also commented on Redmayne's performance when speaking to me, stating that Redmayne was very much like the Colin Clark in the memoir.

Although in the first 20-30 minutes, which is the long equilibrium where each character begins to become familiar with each other for the movie they're about to work on, Redmayne's character doesn't look to have enough depth to last the full 99 minutes, as he is mainly seen just standing in scenes as the others bring The Prince and the Showgirl and simply eavesdropping on the what the actors have to say for each other after each shoot. Gradually, Clark becomes more and more involved in the story as the characters' personal and professional lives begin to intertwine.

The first 20 minutes of a film are long enough to have a spectator either stay in their seat and relish the rest of the film or walk out of the theatre due to boredom or a lack of interest generated from the film. Although the first 20 minutes here are slow in driving the narrative forward and focus on introducing the characters if anything, it is wonderful to watch how it actually seems to mirror Redmayne's own experience. Colin Clark is being introduced to the biggest stars of that generation – Sir Laurence Olivier, Marilyn Monroe, Vivian Leigh – and simultaneously Redmayne is taking the opportunity to work with the experienced actors of today, such as Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench. There is one character that doesn't 'work'. Lucy, played by Emma Watson, is Clark's love interest early in the film, until she is abandoned by him for Marilyn Monroe. This character is not really a necessity for the film and it could have worked without her – we could still be able to comprehend the deep love for Monroe felt by Clark. My guess for why she is included is clearly for historical accuracy.

And historical accuracy is achieved in technical ways too. Playing like a period piece by having been filmed against a backdrop of a 50's- looking London, the costumes and the director's manipulation of the mise-en-scene contribute in adding to the verisimilitude. Maybe the director could have opted to film in hand-held to give the more of a documentary feel for that extra touch of realism. Yet it must be said, the most realistic thing has to be Williams's embodiment of the highly celebrated actress, which deserves to be lauded. As the man who the film could never have been established without, Eddie Redmayne is the spine of the film, but Michelle Williams is the star of the film.