What is Doctor Who? Essentially it is pure fairytale to some and to others it is pure drama and excitement. His adventures mainly consist of helping those in trouble. The beauty of Doctor Who is that stories can take place on distant planets or in key points in time. The character of the Doctor can also be played by several different actors thanks to his handy alien physiology. The latest actorto play the eccentric Doctor is Matt Smith and he’s had an uphill battle to become as popular as his predecessor, David Tennant. So far, he’s done fantastically well based on fan feedback and critics appraisals.

Since its re- launch in 2005, the series has taken off to new heights of popularity capturing the imagination of children and adults. The latest series has gone out of its way to be much more cinematic in scope and talk of a movie version should be lobbied by fans much more. The last two movies to grace the silver screen was in the late 1960s with the arch enemies the Daleks, evil mechanical monsters bent on destroying the human race. Hammer Horror and genre actor, Peter Cushing played an aged Doctor back then but would a big name fill the boots of the Doctor in a movie version? Personally, Johnny Depp, would be an excellent choice to play an eccentric but goodhearted Doctor but he’s not exactly a British actor. But then again, why not let Matt Smith take the lime light as he’s carrying the show so far.

Although the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is a step above Jason or Michael Myers, it was never really about the visual stimulation limitations of the movie characters, but it was always about the plot and the disturbing nature of adding in imagination.  Where this movie makes up for being able to bring the images to life, it robs from your own imagination.

Almost like reading the book versus watching the movie, any new remake of this original can never parallel the original terror that it invoked on an entire generation of movie-gowers.

The Freddy Kruger of new lacks one main ingredient, he fails to be scary.  Unlike the original, he appears to be nothing but a sarcastic character who, albeit very unlikeable, is not the original horror character that Wes Craven created.  The Freddy Kruger from he original was the kind that haunted peoples nightmares for real when they left the theater.  This new character is left sitting in the theater as the audience leaves.  The new Freddy Kruger is nothing but an overgrown pedophile who is creepy and sarcastic, anything but truly scary.  Unlike the original, there were no audience screams, there was no sitting on the edge of your seat, there was no emotional attachment to this Freddy Kruger, he was just another villain among thousands.

Although hard to pinpoint why, either because nothing can ever be as scary as the original, or the hype was made too great, this new Nightmare on Elm Street can do nothing to parallel the original.  In the scheme of cinematography legends, this will not find it’s place.  The Nightmare on Elm Street that kept a whole generation up at night should have remained just that, an original.

Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, is a billionaire arms entrepreneur, Tony Stark, who becomes a computer generated superhero, falls short of the true nature of a superhero.  Marred by his own self-destructive nature as a playboy and a self-entitled narcissists, his character seems to be anything but tragic or heroic.  Add to that the fact that this failing superhero seems to be dying from the very thing, the suit, which makes him powerful, leads to a distracting and haphazard plot.

Along comes the half witted, Mickey Rourke, as a lugubriously-accented Russian villain called Whiplash, who one can not really figure out why he became at odds with Iron Man to begin with besides being Russian.  Sam Rockwell, Downey’s best friend than haphazardly enters the scene, and becomes a side kick.  With his introduction on the scene the already too conflicted plot, becomes even more confusing.  At times it appears that there are a myriad of plots all going on simultaneously, none being all that engaging or clear

Downey’s character seems to be trying to battle three sequels at once making it hard to distinguish what plot to follow.  There is no dominant threat or story line.  The addition of Scarlet Johansson, although fun to look at, only serves to confuse the plot further.  Dressed in skin tight goodness, she becomes some sort of black widow secret agent, all to create sexual tension between Gwenth Paltrow and Downey, although her role in the movie altogether is never quite clear, a little gratuitous eye candy.

On the upside, this movie is full of good banter and being far less politically charged than the original, allows it to be salvageable for entertainment purposes.  Although it will not be hailed as the greatest film of all time, it is somewhat entertaining and has enough good humor and visual stimulation to be worth seeing.  The effects of the movie alone are enough to grab your attention and if not in need of deep philosophical plotting, or any plot at all, your expectations will be met.

The dialogue and writing of the remake sound over the top, and quickly become clique, as the plot itself becomes cumbersome and predictable.  The notion that the Gods, who are supposed to be all powerful and knowing, cannot control themselves enough as to not wage the simplistic of childish war games, is contradictory to the very essence of the Gods. Although it is not clear why top actors such as Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes would be involved in such roles, they do nothing to enhance the attractiveness of this feature film.

Although the budget behind the making of this movie was nothing short of extravagant, the characters outfits seem to be something out of a high school play.  Even when facing a menagerie of mythical monsters, the characters seem drab and unenthusiastic.

While the Gods, who appear to be nothing but an oversized council of nitwits who can’t seem to do anything but moan over the absence of worship, wage war over deep seeded unresolved control issues, the Greek inhabitants try desperately to please them.  The plot centers around the character Perseus who is making his way through the ancient world of Greece unbenounced to him as a demigod.  After spending years with his adoptive fisherfolk parents Spryos and Marmara, who found him floating at sea, he discovers his true origins and comes to realize that it is he how is in charge of saving the world.

Apparently the only person who can save the entire world seems to be Perseus who has a “daddy complex” and a chip on his shoulder.  In true Hollywood fashion, he is to save the beloved princess, Andromeda, and revenge his adoptive parents senseless death by killing the Kraken.

The remake of the “Clash of the Titans”, although not surprising, is nothing short of mediocre.  Some might say that the original was just enough and being that it was no award winner, maybe they should have just left it that way.

Negatives: The first 20 minutes of the film are devoid of almost anything that can prove it to be a comedy film. The female characters are given a very little chance to flourish.

The Bottom Line: In spite of a pretty slow beginning, “The Hangover” is amazingly funny, endowed with clever wit and a firm chemistry between the principal characters. Director Todd Phillips has been able to up raise to the very unexpected with an unbelievable ‘stupid kind of comedy’ story to something really hilariously trustworthy and at the same time quite down to earth i.e. nothing extravaganza.

If you are a suspense film buff then you must watch summertime because of the fact that it has the entire surprising element to make you think every scene.

Synopsis: Buried below the mechanical and the anonymous special effects action scenes lies few resemblance to the much needed good story, but in spite of a valiant attempt made by the excellent cast was unable to rescue this particular film from making it the ultimate bore which it is.

Pros: The actual “Clash of the Titans” is assumed to be an 80’s classic and it featured lot of the great special effects of that era created by the maestro Ray Harryhausen. The latest version of the film appears to make the best use the most updated digital technology with a view to recreate the Greek myths in every possible respects, as a matter of fact the visuals are splendid, more so the Mount Olympus The cast Leterrier has grouped together very well, with in the lead the Sam Worthington putting in a lot depth right into his character, so does the Liam Neeson playing the lead role of the Zeus. Ralph Fiennes seems presumably creepy all through the film as the leader of the underworld. To end with the positives it can be said that the “Clash of the Titans” is a visually engaging experience, and is having few intriguing points to it.

Cons: Excepting the visuals the film suffers from all the usual issues of a barely pondered Hollywood blockbuster. No dramatic point of entry is laid down by neither the script and nor the subsequent direction. Everything appears to be of arbitrary nature. Te 3D version also disappoints the viewers in most scenes.

You might say that it is a bit creepier as a Christmas movie. Things those are shown so clearly might give a few children nightmares but they will obviously enjoy the animated expressions of Jim Carrey. The animation was severely focused on Mr. Scrooge’s facial expressions of desperation and depression. The ghosts are creepy too, but that is understandable. After all ghosts are ghosts no matter what their purpose is.

The funny part of this movie is, Jim Carrey voiced Mr. Scrooge and along with all four ghosts those haunt him. If you want to find out a few flaws then you can look into the not so important characters that Mr. Scrooge meets while visiting his past and future. The animations are not of same standard and lack the emotional touch to perfection.

Another thing that I felt was the movie did not serve the purpose of the book that wanted to connect to the emotional part of the readers. The realization of Mr. Scrooge and evaluation of life are overshadowed by the flashy animation of the journey that Mr. Scrooge under goes. But I think this can be justified as the movie is made to entertain kids and animation lovers and people have had enough of moral education and it’s Christmas. The idea was to give the viewers a nice and wonderful family time and I guess A Christmas Carol and Jim Carrey along with the director Zemeckis was successful in doing that.

When I was watching the movie I wondered who the target viewers are. If you are a fan of the book series then you might question the availability of Edward Cullen in the movie and if you are not then you could be a bit irritated by the length of the movie. But by no stretch of imagination New Moon was a bad movie or anything like that. Those of you who are hardcore fans of Twilight you must have had a great time enjoying this movie.  And I know a lot of people who did not even watch the first part and ended up liking the movie and then saw the first part.

If you go into in depth analysis of this movie, the first thing that you would want to appreciate is Kristen Stewart as Bella. Her performance got only more stunning and impressive than he last movie.

The movie starts with a view of full moon and ends with Bella breathing. In between these, a hardcore fan would get all that he can expect from the movie. They would get the taste of obsession that Bella and Edward has for each other and they would feel the vibe right from the start to the end.  The entrance of Jacob in the main scene sparks the rivalry between the Edward and Jacob followers and they will enjoy the movie to the fullest. But if you are not one of those fans then you might just wonder what these all is about? Why is this obsession? And half of you might look at Edward with curious eyes to find out why your girlfriend is crazy about this guy.

But the fact is I came out of the hall and was pretty pleased that I choose to watch the movie to start my weekend

The most attractive thing in the show was Rachel’s outfit and specially her hair that was casually done and was totally awesome. Her hair was done by the celeb hair styler and Pantene Pro-V ambassador Danilo. And he let us know the ways of styling hair with that casual but yet very exclusive way.

Step one is to divide your dry hair into few sections and apply hairspray to lift the roots. Then you are to use rollers and leave it like that to cool off before you go on and unwrap it into waves. Then you can use a little serum to smooth the ends. Ruffle your hair with fingers to separate the hair.

Keep a wave loose and let it fall across your face and bring the sides of hair back loosely and fold one over the other.

Next step is to comb the hair backwards with a wide toothed comb. Danilo used Pro-V volume and hairspray to complete the styling and ask them who saw Rachel on that evening. Wasn’t she glowing? It was simplicity with class and aristocracy written all over her. This will go down as one of the most fabulous simple Christmas look on my book and I hope so many of my readers will agree with me without any argument what so ever.