Top 5 Up-And-Coming Young Actors.

We know Hollywood is essentially a man's world. Even in the acting world, males dominate the scene. Sure, there are the female superstars, but it typically takes longer for them to break out than perhaps a male. For a guy, it might take a few minor movies and one big movie and they're a major star (yes, there are females that have pulled this off, but it's rarer). Look at my female list from yesterday: their film resumes were in the mid-to-high teens with a mix of minor and major films, but they're still not all that big of names. Of course, there are rare reverse instances (Chloe Moretz becoming more popular than Aaron Johnson). It makes you wonder, though, due to the sexualized nature of the entertainment business why this is... but that's another article.

My point here is that it's tougher to find a male up-and-comer, because most of them are already big, household names... and I don't consider them 'up-and-comers' if they've already arrived. Taylor Lautner? Daniel Radcliffe? Michael Cera? And even, to a lesser degree, Jesse Eisenberg, Clark Duke, and (regardless of him being too old for this list, but just to make a point) Zach Galifianakis AKA "The dude from The Hangover"? They all essentially had one major film and became instant superstars.

So my list here might have some names of actors who have been in big-name movies, but they aren't quite major house-hold names (sorry Jo-Go... I don't think you can make my list anymore).

Top 5 Up-And-Coming Young Actors.

5. Kyle Gallner
Current Age: 23
# of Movies: 16
Probably Recognized From: A Nightmare on Elm Street (remake), The Haunting in Connecticut
Details: He's kind of a "that guy" for young actors. Every time I see him in something, I'm like "Oh, I recognize him." His acting isn't bad, but like the following young actor, he has yet to really shine in anything. Though he was pretty good in Haunting, despite the movie only being OK at best.

--------------------------------------------------

4. Logan Lerman
Current Age: 18
# of Movies: 13
Probably Recognized From: Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief, 3:10 to Yuma
Details: Logan became a bigger name after Percy Jackson, even to the point he had been rumored to take over as Peter Parker for the Spider-Man reboot. As Percy Jackson, he showed some comedic timing, action skills, and a whole lot of "WTF is going on?" He showed similar traits in the incredibly disappointing Gamer. In 3:10 to Yuma, however, he was more hard-headed and much more dramatic. He's been in other recognizable films, but nothing really in a major role.

--------------------------------------------------

3. Jimmy Bennett
Current Age: 14
# of Movies: 20
Probably Recognized From: Hostage, Star Trek, Orphan
Details: I first saw this kid in the Bruce Willis/Ben Foster thriller, Hostage. He did great as the crafty but scared little boy. But he's gotten to be tougher and tougher the more movies he's in. In Orphan, he's the upset older brother. And in Star Trek, for instance, he plays young James Kirk. But one movie that's like "Ho-ly Crap" is one of his earlier films, The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things. In this (really, really messed up) movie, he plays the son of a drug-addicted whore who uses him and is, well, not a good mother. That is a very difficult movie to watch--probably one of the most depressing I've seen (when Marilyn Manson plays one of the more likable characters, and he's still a total perverted sleazeball on screen for maybe 5 minutes, you know what's up). But Jimmy Bennett does amazingly well in it.

--------------------------------------------------

2. Aaron Johnson
Current Age: 20
# of Movies: 13
Probably Recognized From: Kick-Ass, The Illusionist, Shanghai Knights
Details: This guy has actually surprised me. I didn't know he was in those latter two movies before looking him up. He plays the young Edward Norton in The Illusionist, and the young Charlie Chaplin in Jackie Chan/Owen Wilson's Shanghai Knights. But, of course, his biggest claim to fame was the recent Kick-Ass. As I stated earlier, Chloe Moretz gained more fame through that movie than Aaron Johnson, but with the sequel in pre-production, I'm sure he'll garner more fame soon. And to top it off, his acting skills aren't too shabby (and he looks almost nothing like he did in Kick-Ass, strangely).

--------------------------------------------------

1. Anton Yelchin
Current Age: 21
# of Movies: 19
Probably Recognized From: Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Charlie Bartlett, Alpha Dog
Details: Anton Yelchin is an anomaly. He's starred or co-starred in quite a few major Hollywood films, yet you go to your average moviegoer and say "Anton Yelchin," you'll probably get a "who?" But then you say something like "the kid from Charlie Bartlett," and you'll receive a fairly even mix of "Never seen it" and "Oh, I love that movie!" I think his first semi-big role was in Morgan Freeman's Along Came a Spider when he was about 12. But I don't think I first recognized him until the Bruce Willis/Ben Foster (huh...) drama Alpha Dog (OK, so it's more Emile Hirsche/Ben Foster, but I just felt like going the other way). He was excellent in that rather depressing film, and his performance at the end of that movie is just heartbreaking. But after that movie, he popped up quite a bit, from a great quirky comedy (Charlie Bartlett) to two major Blockbusters (Star Trek and Terminator Salvation). While Salvation was decent at best, Yelchin was easily the best part about it as a young Kyle Reese. Sure, his voice might grate on some... but his movies are worth sitting through. And I think out of all the up-and-comers, he's probably the one who will do the best (he already has, really... but people just can't latch on to that name).

(P.S. I'd love to add Joel Moore to this list, but he's unfortunately too old for it... oh well...)

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

Believe it or not, I typically don't go to see the horror remakes of classic horror films in theater. The last one I think I saw in theater was Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which I think was one of the first. I actually only recently saw Rob Zombie's Halloween and the new Friday the 13th (the latter just a couple weeks ago). And they're all pretty much crap. But Freddy is different. Freddy isn't the silent, faceless killer like Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, or Leatherface. No, he has a face... a burnt face, but a face... and quite a mouth. And while I'm not an uber-fan of the original series (I think I've maybe seen two of them all the way through, not counting Freddy vs. Jason), I do like the character of Freddy Krueger, as well as his portrayal by Robert Englund. So to hear that not only were they doing a remake, but that Englund wasn't going to return, I was worried. But then I heard that he was being replaced by Jackie Earle Haley, and I felt better. But were my new-found feelings justified?

The movie is essentially about a bunch of kids who start getting killed off in their dreams by a burnt man with knives on his fingers named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). The main bunch includes Nancy (Rooney Mara), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), Kris (Katie Cassidy), Jesse (Thomas Dekker), and Dean (Kellan Lutz). So why is Freddy after them? Well, let's just say it's a revenge story--he was once a gardener at a preschool accused of being a pedophile, and the parents took justice into their own hands by burning him alive.

That's pretty much the story. The whole movie is just Freddy going after the "kids" as they try to stay awake and figure out what the hell is going on. Story-wise, there's really not much there. If you know the original film(s), there should be no surprises as to Freddy's backstory, which is basically the whole mystery of the movie. So in other words, you're just there to see the kills and scares.

The scares are all jump scares. The music will get quiet, everything will pause for a moment, and then BAM, Freddy appears from nowhere accompanied by a jolt of music. Did they scare me? Sure... but they're still forced scares. It's not a "oh my God this is so creepy" kind of scare. It's not the kind of scary where I won't be able to sleep at night. As for the kills, there is surprisingly little blood in this movie. And whenever there's large amounts, it's typically super-CGI.

Which brings me to one of my first big complaints. The movie relied pretty strongly on CGI. What's pretty cool about the original is that everything is practical. When Freddy pushes his face through the wall in the original? Practical. In the remake? Purely CGI. When blood gushes onto a ceiling in the original? It looks real. In the remake? Super fake (not to mention much, much shorter in time and in less amount). I think this is one of the first times where a modern remake doesn't try to out-gore the original. And for a movie like this, that's kinda lame.

I'm not going to bother getting into the acting, except for one. Jackie Earle Haley was superb as Freddy. I mean, he's no Robert Englund, but if they aren't going to have Robert back, Jackie was the next best thing. He has the voice down, and he's absolutely vicious. He even, toward the end, had some of Freddy's jokes and puns, which he pulled off nicely. The only issue I had with Freddy was his look. I know they wanted to make him look like a more realistic burn victim, but it just came off as fake. Parts of his face was too smooth, too plastic looking, especially in comparison to the original, which had deep pits and ugly scars. And I'm pretty sure they even did CGI on part of his face (trying to pull off a semi-Two-Face kinda thing), but I can't be certain there. But if they did, that's totally lame.

The cinematography was actually really good, keeping the movie dream-like and stylized. It was hard to tell sometimes what was a dream and what was real. Though I particularly liked the pharmacy scene, where it flashed back and forth between the real and dream worlds. Also, there are some nice moments recreated from the original movie (like the bathtub scene, though it doesn't go on like it does in the original).

So it was pretty decent, especially for a classic horror remake. Freddy was perfectly cast since they couldn't get Robert Englund. The second half of the movie, I felt, was better than the first half. The first half focused strongly on little plot, dream sequences, and the Kris and Jesse characters. The second half was more on figuring out the mystery while focusing on Nancy and Quentin (and the dream sequences were cleverer, and some were straight from the original). Overall, the movie had some issues, from the minor and up, but it was still decent entertainment, mostly thanks to Jackie Earle Haley, who boosted it up a point or two in my ratings from what it could have been.


I Am McLovin!