This is so tricky because the metrics are so slippery. Technically, you'd have to be a good-enough actor to become a leading man or woman, no? Movie history is littered with dubious supporting role actors like Josh Gad or Cody Horn.
On one level, you have a guy like Paul Walker, a genuinely terrible actor who was avoided when he wasn't behind a wheel, but who also knew his limitations enough to avoid any challenging roles beyond "Fast And Furious".
On another level, you have demonstrably talented actors like Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell, who have lost studios hundreds of millions of dollars. Should ROI be determined by losing $200 million on two movies, or losing $5-10 million each on several projects? McGregor and Farrell have done both.
Of the actors mentioned in the final tally, the one that stands out to me is Jennifer Lopez, for whose "Worst Rated Movies" are indistinguishable from her other work, in popularity and quality. Everyone else, the metrics are dubious. Seagal's "worst-rated" affairs are from the period where he was no longer a movie star, and those were direct-to-DVD/streaming.
Dolph Lundgren should be exempt from such a study, because he is The World's Most Interesting Man.
Mickey Rourke WAS a really good actor. Check out Barfly and The Wrestler. Seems like he lost it after that. Can I nominate him as the the most talented of the worst actor list?
This is excellent & very interesting. But I have to go back & look at your methodology. Not because I disagree with any of it - it seems quite solid - but it doesn’t produce the obvious answer, which is surely Charles Bronson. Any answer that isn’t Charles Brunson is, to my mind, fabulously counter-intuitive.
I think the title is misleading. These are NOT the worst actors because at no point did you factor in an occasional outstanding performances and something ineffable about the zeitgeist.
Travolta for example has made some duds, but you cannot dismiss his era defining role in Grease or his return to ascendance in Pulp Fiction. You should also not dismiss perfectly fine fare such as Michael or Phenomenon or Get Shorty. He is one of the few movie starts in history to have been the biggest star on the planet, disappeared into obscurity, and returned to be a bankable headliner again.
In contrast, Steven Seagal, other than the barely watchable Under Siege has never made anything of cinematic value. He's a crappy actor in trash films. He has never had a single cinematic moment in his career to touch Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan, Madonna in Dick Tracy, or Madonna in Evita. Madonna is not a great actor, but she has more on-screen charisma in her facial mole than Seagal does in his entire oevre.
I get that you tried to get all science-y on something that should be more subjective and nuanced, but only looking at shitty, poorly performing movies doesn't seem to have produced anything recognizably honest.
Super interesting writing as always, I light up every week when I see this in my inbox. I feel like this represents the conclusion almost in the "online rating", "box office success", "award show" rankings aggregated methodology at least for the latest run of it.
This is so tricky because the metrics are so slippery. Technically, you'd have to be a good-enough actor to become a leading man or woman, no? Movie history is littered with dubious supporting role actors like Josh Gad or Cody Horn.
On one level, you have a guy like Paul Walker, a genuinely terrible actor who was avoided when he wasn't behind a wheel, but who also knew his limitations enough to avoid any challenging roles beyond "Fast And Furious".
On another level, you have demonstrably talented actors like Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell, who have lost studios hundreds of millions of dollars. Should ROI be determined by losing $200 million on two movies, or losing $5-10 million each on several projects? McGregor and Farrell have done both.
Of the actors mentioned in the final tally, the one that stands out to me is Jennifer Lopez, for whose "Worst Rated Movies" are indistinguishable from her other work, in popularity and quality. Everyone else, the metrics are dubious. Seagal's "worst-rated" affairs are from the period where he was no longer a movie star, and those were direct-to-DVD/streaming.
Dolph Lundgren should be exempt from such a study, because he is The World's Most Interesting Man.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Mickey Rourke WAS a really good actor. Check out Barfly and The Wrestler. Seems like he lost it after that. Can I nominate him as the the most talented of the worst actor list?
I like Mickey Rourke too, especially in Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.
This is excellent & very interesting. But I have to go back & look at your methodology. Not because I disagree with any of it - it seems quite solid - but it doesn’t produce the obvious answer, which is surely Charles Bronson. Any answer that isn’t Charles Brunson is, to my mind, fabulously counter-intuitive.
Another great one. You do the math so we don’t have to!
I think the title is misleading. These are NOT the worst actors because at no point did you factor in an occasional outstanding performances and something ineffable about the zeitgeist.
Travolta for example has made some duds, but you cannot dismiss his era defining role in Grease or his return to ascendance in Pulp Fiction. You should also not dismiss perfectly fine fare such as Michael or Phenomenon or Get Shorty. He is one of the few movie starts in history to have been the biggest star on the planet, disappeared into obscurity, and returned to be a bankable headliner again.
In contrast, Steven Seagal, other than the barely watchable Under Siege has never made anything of cinematic value. He's a crappy actor in trash films. He has never had a single cinematic moment in his career to touch Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan, Madonna in Dick Tracy, or Madonna in Evita. Madonna is not a great actor, but she has more on-screen charisma in her facial mole than Seagal does in his entire oevre.
I get that you tried to get all science-y on something that should be more subjective and nuanced, but only looking at shitty, poorly performing movies doesn't seem to have produced anything recognizably honest.
Jim Carrey
Adam Driver is tanking, wow
I've been looking for data based content like this, helps me think of fun data projects to do
Great analysis as always! I'd have to add Keanu Reeves to this list. He seems like a great guy but his delivery is pretty wooden in many of his roles.
Super interesting writing as always, I light up every week when I see this in my inbox. I feel like this represents the conclusion almost in the "online rating", "box office success", "award show" rankings aggregated methodology at least for the latest run of it.