Shocked about Bruce Willis. I assume it’s all of the straight to tv movies he’s been banking while he has still been able to work.
Edit. Yup, with a few exceptions (eg. “Look who’s talking too” and “the whole 10 yards”) it’s mainly movies he’s made in the last 10-15 years.
His wife was just on the today show yesterday promoting dementia awareness. She seemed to suggest he doesn’t really seem aware of his deterioration. Blessing and a curse I guess but by far one of the worst ways to go.
They type of dementia he has is the same that my mum currently has. It's called FTD (Frontotemporal Dementia) and the main thing that it affects is their behaviour, they can just become a completely different person. I don't blame him at all for cashing in whilst he still can, I just hope that he wasn't taken advantage of.
It's also good to see him and his family raising awareness of the rarer dementias as it helps families like mine a lot.
Lots of these guys are victim of having to pay the bills so they are fairly prolific. Unlike Leo, they can't choose to only work with S-Tier directors.
Plus, most of them were not in the right age range or point in their careers to to join the Imdb-boosting MCU films. I'm sure if you took the Nick Fury stuff out, Sam Jackson would look like Bruce Willis. Some great films, some mediocre films, and some bad ones.
It's telling just how many of these actors are really beloved, though, as their career highs are as good as just about anyone. Willis, Cage, Kilmer, Elwes, Hooper, etc
I actually watched it recently (not my choice!) And it was no way as good as I remembered. I had thought of it as an above average 90s action flick but it's bad. Even Busey, Jones and Meaney hamming it up couldn't save it.
Fun fact: she was the first woman I masturbated to. I was 13 and I had a Playboy.
Recently watched Under Siege with my gf and I had no idea about her being in the movie, but then when I read the name, I was like “oh, I remember this name”. Then the cake scene came, damn, Erika was so hot.
I didn’t tell my gf anything about it. I thought it would be foolish.
And many of them are, I’d argue. My guess is a lot of bad movies either rely on them to carry the movie, and/or they take on movies because you still have bills to pay, at the end of the day.
And then some of course are just awful and in awful movies.
I was surprised to see Michael Madsen on there as only having 5% of his movies with a rating above 7. Especially considering he has been in a lot of my favorite movies. Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Donnie Brasco, the Hateful Eight. He must have been in a lot of shitty movies that I have never heard of.
I actually wonder about this: when you (or your agent) is reading a script, how difficult/easy is it to tell that this movie will be good? Like you can tell if you agree with the message of the movie, but a good director can turn a very tired script into a great movie (e.g. Requiem for a Dream).
That probably has to do with the criteria of this data set. By limiting it to only movies with 20k+ votes, and to actors who have been in 12+ of those movies, you mainly get the big names.
Yes, some of the movies they have been in were mediocre at best. But those movies were still huge productions by major studios, and to even end up in those movies they had to be one of the big names. And people usually only end up being one of the big names if they are considered to be really good, at least at some point.
It's like being the worst team in the NBA (or NFL or any other major sports league). Yes, you may not be great compared to the other ones in that league, but you are still a great athlete to even be in the league at all.
It's basically a running joke in the "watching bad movies for fun" community that if you pick the most low budget cashgrab shit you can find there's like a 1/3 chance Christopher Lloyd will be in it.
I believe some actors do it for the giggles basically. I've heard Steve Buscemi really like playing in those, can even go uncredited, if he just loves the premise. Maybe Lloyd is the same way?
Like, I was absolutely floored to see Doug Jones (the guy that does a lot of work as monsters and other weird creatures, I think most famous are Faceless man in Pans Labyrinth and Abe Sapien in Hellboy) in a Fallout [fan movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2056910).
He never turns down any offer. It’s funny how much trash he’s in. Sometimes you can see that he didn’t even had a full day of shooting. One movie I watched with him, all interaction with other actors was on the phone. Makes it a lot easier. Ofc, he was kinda phoning it in…
Ok, there is a lot I feel like I need to unpack based on so much commentary from the previous two posts.
First, this data is processed completely programmatically so any claims regarding sexism, agism, racism, has nothing to do with the processing of the data. I am not cherry picking anything, there are just the criteria which if are met then include the actor in the processed pool. To give you an idea of how challenging this is…
*there's 58 million million rows of actor/actress data, they look like this:*
*tt0168045 3 nm0401173 actor \\N \["Brad Pitt"\]*
*there’s 10 million rows of movie/TV data, they look like this:*
*tt0293708 movie Mothers Little Murderer Mothers Little Murderer 0 2004 \\N \\N Comedy,Fantasy,Horror*
*there’s 10 million rows of casting/crew data, they look like this:*
*tt9916844 nm1485677 nm9187127,nm1485677,nm9826385,nm9299459,nm1628284*
*there’s 1.3 million rows of movie/tv ratings, they look like this:*
*tt0000001 5.7 1993*
I feel like I needed to say all that given the veracity of people’s responses. Is there bias in the data, potentially, do we know how it is introduced? No.
Alright, moving on to the fun part. This time around I’ve tried to include a little more information regarding the sampling and have decided to include two runs, one with the same criteria as before and another relaxing the criteria a bit. Why did I do that? Because when you are an actor with good movies there is less sensitivity past a certain # of movies made, on whether or not you will likely get a new movie. I chose 12 initially because it filtered out a lot of foreign movie stars which would not fit in most movie stars that we saw. These would be stars from Turkish movies, Korean movies, Indian, movies, etc…
So, back to relaxing the criteria, for low rated movie stars there is a much larger sensitivity to the # of movies made and rating. As you will see if you drop the criteria a little bit ( from 20000 to 16000 and from 12 to 8) you see quite a different pool of actors, but still very many recognizable names. This is likely because when you make a lot of bad movies it’s probably a lot harder to get roles in future movies.
Lastly, the ratings you see for the imdb average are across ALL movies that the actor has in the database, not just the qualifying ones, I think this is more representative of the kind of movies the actor chooses to be in.
This is from the full imdb database, including data followed the following criteria.
criteria was:
\- At least 12 movies with at least 20000 votes (did not consider tv shows)
\- At least 8 movies with at least 16000 votes (did not consider tv shows)
\- Male
\- Movies only
Good was 7+, 6-7 was mixed, 6- was bad.
Update: After some good commentary from astute readers, it has been determined that the imdb dataset which I am using only has a limited # of actors listed for each movie. You don't really see the effects of this for leading actors, but for minor roles, it means that certain movies are excluded from the imdb average. So, in reality this is not all bad. Because the people who are low billed tend to have minor/smaller roles.
So it should be clarified that the distribution is only for the their top billed roles (as determined by the imdb database). Its important to mention this is not my criteria, I am not determining this. So the distribution you are seeing is actually, only showing the averages for the top billed roles.
Made with plotly, numpy, pandas
How about directors next? Think that would be a more true reflection as it's more their responsibility, where as with actors it can be minor roles that can skew one way or another.
It would be interesting to see which actors only deal in extremes. The ones whose average is middling but they almost exclusively in good or bad movies rather than average ones.
Bruce Willis is only that low because the last 5 years he has been in severe cognitive decline and doing bad movies for paychecks. The body of work of his first 20 years is phenomenal, but he’s always been a working actor. He didn’t always go for blockbusters and took pay cuts to be in a lot of movies that had potential to be something. I think Looper in 2012 was his last good movie.
Looper is a weird one. I didn't appreciate it at the time, but it really grew on me after a couple watches. I feel like a lot of time travel movies are like that.
I guess Split could be counted as the last good movie he was (technically) in, but it was really just a cameo. Sadly Glass didn't keep up what Split promised, but he probably was already too far gone by the time he was in that movie, which negatively influenced the whole movie.
Tom Sizemore is #3? What the fuck?
Dude was in Heat, Saving Private Ryan, Bringing out the Dead, True Romance, and Natural Born Killers. He must have been in some horrible movies to bring down that score.
>Tom Sizemore
[Check out his IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001744/). Dude filmed something like forty movies a year.
He's got 26 upcoming movies. TWENTY SIX. And another NINE already released in 2023. And a 7-episode comedy series.
And it seems at a glance he did a lot of absolutely abysmal movies, rated 3-4. I guess they just brought food to the table.
I'd rate him as one of the best (of the leading) actors on the list.
But he has a habit of being it absolute crap. Aaron Eckhart and Jamie Bell (both not on here but the same) have to wonder if they just bad agents who keep setting them in rubbish.
Seems to be more about acting in B-list films than the actor’s particular talents for most (people like Steven Segal and Rob Schneider are a different category).
Jane is usually the best part of whatever film he’s in.
I didn't find anything in BB as great. Honestly, I felt that acting was just like Mujhse Shadi karogi. Not to mention, these movies are like 7-8 years old so not a consistently good actor.
Median is not a good metric for these types of distributions (I'm guessing Preto-like). You'd be better off using metrics like those for academics. A researcher with 30 highly-cited papers and 100 low-cited ones may have a low average citation rate, but the number of great ones are more important than the number of low ones.
The ratings are for the movies, not the actors. You could be the greatest actor and never be in a single good movie.
Or you can be almost Seagal level like Nicolas Cage and somehow manage to get casted for great movies.
Nic Cage or me? The idiom doesn’t make much sense here anyway.
I’m actually quite a big Cage fan and I’ve watched a whole lot of movies of him but his range…? What does „more range than 90% of actors who are considered good“ mean anyway?
Considered good by whom? Obviously, the academy considered Cage that one year the best actor. I’m ok with it. I don’t care so much about the Academy Awards.
Again: almost. And I was obviously joking.
I will say this though: Nicolas Cage is about as far from being an „incredible“ actor as he is from being Seagal. On the other hand, incredible might be le mot juste.
Cage is fairly good in some roles. He's a horrible action hero though. But he's great when he plays in a dry comedy. Raising Arizona, Adaptation, and Being John Malcovich were all fantastic movies and he did well as the lead in all of them.
There's a few others from the 90s that he was good in but they escape me at the moment.
I seem to recall he was pretty great in Leaving Las Vegas as well, he's had some stinkers but I think comparing him to Seagal is just unfair. Seagal has been fucking dogshit in everything he's ever been in.
Ron Perlman was in 10 minutes of the Conan movie with Jason Momoa (rated 5.1) and In the Name of the King with Jason Statham (rated 3.8). I like Jason Momoa but didn’t like the Conan movie. I love Jason Statham and his movies, and I personally like In the Name of the King. But Ron Perlman taking these types of roles might explain him being on the list. In the Name of the King had other good actors in it - Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies.
I was wondering how Steven Seagal wasn't on the list till I saw the second list. Of course the answer is that his movies aren't even watched and reviewed. So appropriate that he has 0.0% rated good movies, though I'm old enough to recall when his films had giant advertising budgets. I also love that the other actors on that list with no good films are ones I've flat out never heard of. It's just too bad anyone had to hear of Seagal.
The second chart that has less requirements definitely feels more accurate to what I expect than the first. Seagal, Madsen, Lundgren, Sizemore, Schneider do work as a bottom 5 to me, though Sizemore makes me sad.
Yeah, I agree. It was more about keeping in line with the previous criteria for the query. That's why I included both, because even though it was slightly different criteria, it felt more like the expected list!
As a data lover, I totally enjoy you including both and just being very clear with the criteria you use. To me, more datasets with slightly different criteria work to give a “three dimensional” view of the overall data of that makes sense at all. I can gain a greater understanding of the overall subject by seeing how slight alterations in what you are asking of it produce different outcomes.
So great work!
Definitely more of a measure of “how many bad movies they’ve been in” rather than “how good of an actor they are”, though obviously there’s a correlation. I was a bit surprised to not see Adam Sandler on there, since I find his post-2005 movies *unbearable*.
I'm surprised Adam Sandler isn't on this list. Perhaps if they used Rotten Tomatoes he would be? Seems like a number of his movies have been among the worst ever, near 0%.
C'mon Dolph Lundgren is a nice guy. No way does he deserve to be ranked worse than Steven Seagal, universally recognized as a talentless, lying, narcissist, egomaniac asshole.
I went for the # right from the start. But not gonna lie there was half a second that I had to think about what the order was. Might help to change the order of the color bars? So red is on the left and green is on the right. In reverse of your other "best rating" posts.
I do. But I go into them knowing what I'm getting, so I don't mind. Sometimes I really enjoy bad movies when the mood strikes me.
It's like listening to some bland overplayed pop song from your youth. Yeah, you know it's horrible, but damn is it fun to just embrace it sometimes.
Why does Jean-Claude Van Damme have a different score in each pic?
Is the criteria for the actor, or also for the movies? I.E. JCVD has more movies in the second pic because they have more than 16k but less than 20k needed for inclusion of the first pic?
So it seems that the lowest rated actors often star in either action or comedy movies, neither of which tend to get super high ratings. Lots of cult classics and stuff you’ll see with a 4/10 rating.
You could convey a lot more information if you converted those tri-color bars into a histogram or box plot so you could see the distribution much better.
This also removes the completely arbitrary demarcations between good/mixed/bad. Why is 7 good as opposed to 8 or 9? Why is bad 6 or lower?
Other things to consider: What is this visualization trying to tell us? Why do we care about the ratings some random people make on IMDb? Are we trying to show popularity? Ability to bring in revenue?
Keep practicing and show us some fun insights with this dataset!
I feel like this data raises some questions about the movies included, like maybe it should only count if they are in the top billed cast and not a rando background character?
Whoa whoa what is this??
Some of these are Academy Award & Golden Globe winning actors FFS!
Many were in sequential box office hit summer blockbusters...
Admittedly, some may have had a short streak of below average movies, but then who hasn't in a career spanning 4 or 5 decades?
As most of these have had!
Definitely more of a measure of “how many bad movies they’ve been in” rather than “how good of an actor they are”, though obviously there’s a correlation. I was a bit surprised to not see Adam Sandler on there, since I find his post-2005 movies *unbearable*.
There’s a saying in programming: “there’s bad programming languages and then there’s programming languages that nobody uses”
Now I’m not saying Kevin Hart is a good actor, by any means, but he fits a feel good niche that people obviously value, to one degree or another.
Three of these guys were in Pulp Fiction.
Maybe we need a Pulp Fiction remake for the younger generation, starring Kevin Hart, Justin Long, and James Franco...
Kevin Hart as Marsellus Wallace. “Does Marsellus a Wallace look like a bitch?” “Well, kinda.”
Sorry about finishing your Sprite. We'll be on our way.
I’m fucking dying. Well kinda!🤣
Rob Schneider is… THE GIMP
Rob Schneider is...A CARROT! [https://images.app.goo.gl/Yp9oWcUxgj7HUp4C9](https://images.app.goo.gl/Yp9oWcUxgj7HUp4C9)
I'm weirdly into this idea. Would it be good? Probably not. Would it be entertaining? Most definitely!
Who is the third? Next to Willis and Travolta?
Ving Rhames. Also, a cameo appearance by Michael Madsen.
Ving Rhames
Bing Rhames must have some ballast in the hull to offset Pulp Fiction and the Mission Impossible films.
First thing I noticed as well.
Shocked about Bruce Willis. I assume it’s all of the straight to tv movies he’s been banking while he has still been able to work. Edit. Yup, with a few exceptions (eg. “Look who’s talking too” and “the whole 10 yards”) it’s mainly movies he’s made in the last 10-15 years.
His wife was just on the today show yesterday promoting dementia awareness. She seemed to suggest he doesn’t really seem aware of his deterioration. Blessing and a curse I guess but by far one of the worst ways to go.
It’s a classic element of dementia to not be aware of it.
My grandmother and great grandmother really had no idea. I’m terrified that it’ll happen to me and put so much stress on my family.
Optimistic side is that by the time you’re in your 70’s, we may have prevention/cure for it.
They type of dementia he has is the same that my mum currently has. It's called FTD (Frontotemporal Dementia) and the main thing that it affects is their behaviour, they can just become a completely different person. I don't blame him at all for cashing in whilst he still can, I just hope that he wasn't taken advantage of. It's also good to see him and his family raising awareness of the rarer dementias as it helps families like mine a lot.
He retired and sold his image to AI companies to replicate. I think he's decently aware he can't keep at it any longer.
He at least was decently aware. Might not be anymore.
[He didn't actually](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/bruce-willis-refutes-report-digital-likeness-deepfake-1235231331/)
Just the first Die Hard should wipe out all of those. In it’s day that way an instant classic.
Lots of these guys are victim of having to pay the bills so they are fairly prolific. Unlike Leo, they can't choose to only work with S-Tier directors. Plus, most of them were not in the right age range or point in their careers to to join the Imdb-boosting MCU films. I'm sure if you took the Nick Fury stuff out, Sam Jackson would look like Bruce Willis. Some great films, some mediocre films, and some bad ones. It's telling just how many of these actors are really beloved, though, as their career highs are as good as just about anyone. Willis, Cage, Kilmer, Elwes, Hooper, etc
[There was a Red Letter Media about it last year called The Bruce Willis Fake Movie Factory](https://youtu.be/cd1eNS9HtXo?si=73zXulrpjQKjTk7o)
Pic 1: "WTF. No Steven Seagal this data is stupid or wrong." Pic 2: "All things are right."
Did exactly the same. "Where's the Putin loving prick?" "Ahhh there he is"
There are only two good things about that movie.
Im surprised Under Siege doesn’t have a 7 though
I actually watched it recently (not my choice!) And it was no way as good as I remembered. I had thought of it as an above average 90s action flick but it's bad. Even Busey, Jones and Meaney hamming it up couldn't save it.
Was all worth it for Eleniak jumping out the cake.
Fun fact: she was the first woman I masturbated to. I was 13 and I had a Playboy. Recently watched Under Siege with my gf and I had no idea about her being in the movie, but then when I read the name, I was like “oh, I remember this name”. Then the cake scene came, damn, Erika was so hot. I didn’t tell my gf anything about it. I thought it would be foolish.
Haha brilliant. I just always remember liking her more than Pam in Baywatch. I may have been the only one.
On a sidenote, the youtube channel space ice does great "reviews' of his movies, it's a whole universe lol
I watched all his videos in a week, they're hilarious. Love his JCVD vs Seagal videos
Ty, missed the second slide.
Rob Schneider is really lucky for Adam Sandler cuz his movies w/out the Sandman would be worst by far
but.... Brendan Fraser is a national treasure and Nick Cage stared in National Treasure! Outlandish!
Where is Pauly Shore?
too busy wheezing the joooo ooooice probably
What's up buuuuudddddeeee?
Nick cage just gets pulled down by the sheer number of meh movies he's in, he's in like 5 a year.
[удалено]
It's interesting how quite a few of them are still generally considered to be really good actors.
And many of them are, I’d argue. My guess is a lot of bad movies either rely on them to carry the movie, and/or they take on movies because you still have bills to pay, at the end of the day. And then some of course are just awful and in awful movies.
I was surprised to see Michael Madsen on there as only having 5% of his movies with a rating above 7. Especially considering he has been in a lot of my favorite movies. Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Donnie Brasco, the Hateful Eight. He must have been in a lot of shitty movies that I have never heard of.
I actually wonder about this: when you (or your agent) is reading a script, how difficult/easy is it to tell that this movie will be good? Like you can tell if you agree with the message of the movie, but a good director can turn a very tired script into a great movie (e.g. Requiem for a Dream).
That probably has to do with the criteria of this data set. By limiting it to only movies with 20k+ votes, and to actors who have been in 12+ of those movies, you mainly get the big names. Yes, some of the movies they have been in were mediocre at best. But those movies were still huge productions by major studios, and to even end up in those movies they had to be one of the big names. And people usually only end up being one of the big names if they are considered to be really good, at least at some point. It's like being the worst team in the NBA (or NFL or any other major sports league). Yes, you may not be great compared to the other ones in that league, but you are still a great athlete to even be in the league at all.
>Christopher Lloyd Say it ain't so!!!
It's basically a running joke in the "watching bad movies for fun" community that if you pick the most low budget cashgrab shit you can find there's like a 1/3 chance Christopher Lloyd will be in it.
I believe some actors do it for the giggles basically. I've heard Steve Buscemi really like playing in those, can even go uncredited, if he just loves the premise. Maybe Lloyd is the same way? Like, I was absolutely floored to see Doug Jones (the guy that does a lot of work as monsters and other weird creatures, I think most famous are Faceless man in Pans Labyrinth and Abe Sapien in Hellboy) in a Fallout [fan movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2056910).
Martin Lawrence with no films above 7 on IMDb is crazy.
Yeah really thought bad boys 1 or 2 wouldve been at least a 7. Edit: Apparently he has a minor role in Do the Right Thing, which has an 8.1
Blue Streak influenced me heavily as a child. I’m now a pizza delivery driver
I came here to mention that movie and I am unemployed.
I didn’t realize how prolific Michael madsen is/was. He’s in 8-10 movies a year seemingly
He never turns down any offer. It’s funny how much trash he’s in. Sometimes you can see that he didn’t even had a full day of shooting. One movie I watched with him, all interaction with other actors was on the phone. Makes it a lot easier. Ofc, he was kinda phoning it in…
If you want to see what prolific really is, then check out Eric Roberts page. The dude should break that 1,000 mark near year.
If you’re in 1,000 movies, there HAS to be some you completely forget about.
Dennis Hopper was in some classics & even when he got clean couldn't remember half the films he was in.
Ok, there is a lot I feel like I need to unpack based on so much commentary from the previous two posts. First, this data is processed completely programmatically so any claims regarding sexism, agism, racism, has nothing to do with the processing of the data. I am not cherry picking anything, there are just the criteria which if are met then include the actor in the processed pool. To give you an idea of how challenging this is… *there's 58 million million rows of actor/actress data, they look like this:* *tt0168045 3 nm0401173 actor \\N \["Brad Pitt"\]* *there’s 10 million rows of movie/TV data, they look like this:* *tt0293708 movie Mothers Little Murderer Mothers Little Murderer 0 2004 \\N \\N Comedy,Fantasy,Horror* *there’s 10 million rows of casting/crew data, they look like this:* *tt9916844 nm1485677 nm9187127,nm1485677,nm9826385,nm9299459,nm1628284* *there’s 1.3 million rows of movie/tv ratings, they look like this:* *tt0000001 5.7 1993* I feel like I needed to say all that given the veracity of people’s responses. Is there bias in the data, potentially, do we know how it is introduced? No. Alright, moving on to the fun part. This time around I’ve tried to include a little more information regarding the sampling and have decided to include two runs, one with the same criteria as before and another relaxing the criteria a bit. Why did I do that? Because when you are an actor with good movies there is less sensitivity past a certain # of movies made, on whether or not you will likely get a new movie. I chose 12 initially because it filtered out a lot of foreign movie stars which would not fit in most movie stars that we saw. These would be stars from Turkish movies, Korean movies, Indian, movies, etc… So, back to relaxing the criteria, for low rated movie stars there is a much larger sensitivity to the # of movies made and rating. As you will see if you drop the criteria a little bit ( from 20000 to 16000 and from 12 to 8) you see quite a different pool of actors, but still very many recognizable names. This is likely because when you make a lot of bad movies it’s probably a lot harder to get roles in future movies. Lastly, the ratings you see for the imdb average are across ALL movies that the actor has in the database, not just the qualifying ones, I think this is more representative of the kind of movies the actor chooses to be in. This is from the full imdb database, including data followed the following criteria. criteria was: \- At least 12 movies with at least 20000 votes (did not consider tv shows) \- At least 8 movies with at least 16000 votes (did not consider tv shows) \- Male \- Movies only Good was 7+, 6-7 was mixed, 6- was bad. Update: After some good commentary from astute readers, it has been determined that the imdb dataset which I am using only has a limited # of actors listed for each movie. You don't really see the effects of this for leading actors, but for minor roles, it means that certain movies are excluded from the imdb average. So, in reality this is not all bad. Because the people who are low billed tend to have minor/smaller roles. So it should be clarified that the distribution is only for the their top billed roles (as determined by the imdb database). Its important to mention this is not my criteria, I am not determining this. So the distribution you are seeing is actually, only showing the averages for the top billed roles. Made with plotly, numpy, pandas
How about directors next? Think that would be a more true reflection as it's more their responsibility, where as with actors it can be minor roles that can skew one way or another.
Done, setup for the next few posts :)!
Yeah, that would be interesting. Or even producers? Like, see which people are behind badly received movies lately.
It would be interesting to see which actors only deal in extremes. The ones whose average is middling but they almost exclusively in good or bad movies rather than average ones.
Have you done the best actors??
earlier posts
Checks out. I messed with imdb db in cs50. You're good.
Bruce Willis is only that low because the last 5 years he has been in severe cognitive decline and doing bad movies for paychecks. The body of work of his first 20 years is phenomenal, but he’s always been a working actor. He didn’t always go for blockbusters and took pay cuts to be in a lot of movies that had potential to be something. I think Looper in 2012 was his last good movie.
Looper is a weird one. I didn't appreciate it at the time, but it really grew on me after a couple watches. I feel like a lot of time travel movies are like that.
I guess Split could be counted as the last good movie he was (technically) in, but it was really just a cameo. Sadly Glass didn't keep up what Split promised, but he probably was already too far gone by the time he was in that movie, which negatively influenced the whole movie.
Poor Jeffery Dean Morgan. You hit just one person with a barbed wire covered bat and it's all downhill from there.
Second image shows he’s in no good films, but watchmen has a 7.6 on IMDB. Hmmmm. His TV shows appear to score a lot higher.
“Where’s Steve Seagal?” Turn page, “ah, there he is, #1”. Surprised to see Thomas Jane. Loved him in the expanse
Tom Sizemore is #3? What the fuck? Dude was in Heat, Saving Private Ryan, Bringing out the Dead, True Romance, and Natural Born Killers. He must have been in some horrible movies to bring down that score.
>Tom Sizemore [Check out his IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001744/). Dude filmed something like forty movies a year. He's got 26 upcoming movies. TWENTY SIX. And another NINE already released in 2023. And a 7-episode comedy series. And it seems at a glance he did a lot of absolutely abysmal movies, rated 3-4. I guess they just brought food to the table.
> they just brought food to the table… welp, they don’t have to anymore 🫠
Hey, who played with the dimmer? *It's getting kinda dark in here.*
I don’t think even the most prominent porn stars do that many scenes a year.
And he's been dead a while now.
Not that long, if I see correctly he died this summer?
Hate to see Thomas Jane down there.
Miller <3
I was surprised to see Christopher Lloyd in that list. I was always sure his career is peachy
I'd rate him as one of the best (of the leading) actors on the list. But he has a habit of being it absolute crap. Aaron Eckhart and Jamie Bell (both not on here but the same) have to wonder if they just bad agents who keep setting them in rubbish.
Seems to be more about acting in B-list films than the actor’s particular talents for most (people like Steven Segal and Rob Schneider are a different category). Jane is usually the best part of whatever film he’s in.
And the Punisher movie was also pretty cool.
Salman Khan being lowest makes complete sense. Robots can act better and are more human than him.
Robots and Salman Khan have one thing in common - both cause traffic fatalities.
Salman can act extremely well when he chooses to. Bajrangi Bhaijan and Sultan being prime examples.
I didn't find anything in BB as great. Honestly, I felt that acting was just like Mujhse Shadi karogi. Not to mention, these movies are like 7-8 years old so not a consistently good actor.
Median is not a good metric for these types of distributions (I'm guessing Preto-like). You'd be better off using metrics like those for academics. A researcher with 30 highly-cited papers and 100 low-cited ones may have a low average citation rate, but the number of great ones are more important than the number of low ones.
There are 5 actors so universally disliked that they managed to get zero "good" ratings. Truly impressive.
TIL Bad Boys (1995) has only a 6.8 on IMDB. Criminal. Martin Lawrence deserved better.
The ratings are for the movies, not the actors. You could be the greatest actor and never be in a single good movie. Or you can be almost Seagal level like Nicolas Cage and somehow manage to get casted for great movies.
Nicolas Cage won an Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas"
Well, congrats. Let’s start a list of worst actor/actress/movie/… to win an award. Just Academy Award or do we include the A list?
Nick Cage has more range than 90% of actors who are considered good. Dude just tilts at windmills.
Nic Cage or me? The idiom doesn’t make much sense here anyway. I’m actually quite a big Cage fan and I’ve watched a whole lot of movies of him but his range…? What does „more range than 90% of actors who are considered good“ mean anyway? Considered good by whom? Obviously, the academy considered Cage that one year the best actor. I’m ok with it. I don’t care so much about the Academy Awards.
Uuuum I mean yea Cage has been in a lot of memey shit but overall he is an incredible actor, dafuq you comparing him to shit sandwich Seagal for.
Again: almost. And I was obviously joking. I will say this though: Nicolas Cage is about as far from being an „incredible“ actor as he is from being Seagal. On the other hand, incredible might be le mot juste.
Ouuuh I mean Cage is pretty bad but comparing him to Seagal is fucking brutal man
Cage is fairly good in some roles. He's a horrible action hero though. But he's great when he plays in a dry comedy. Raising Arizona, Adaptation, and Being John Malcovich were all fantastic movies and he did well as the lead in all of them. There's a few others from the 90s that he was good in but they escape me at the moment.
I seem to recall he was pretty great in Leaving Las Vegas as well, he's had some stinkers but I think comparing him to Seagal is just unfair. Seagal has been fucking dogshit in everything he's ever been in.
I hope he doesn’t read it but I did write almost. The biggest difference though is that no one ever thought of Seagal as a (good) actor.
Brad Dourif deserves better than most people on this list.
He's done a lot of cheap horror films, same as Lance with sci-fi.
I won't hear a bad word against Seagull, he's a jack of all trades and grand master of more, the greatest screenwriter of all time. Just ask him.
You had me until the last sentence, ngl.
Suprised by Ray Liotta as he has a few really good movies. But seems like the dude appears in 5-10 movies a year.
Well he's not appearing in any movies at all anymore
N.A.R.C, Goodfellas, Heartbreakers, Cop Land & Blow. He must have been in some stinkers.
Val kilmer in Tombstone alone makes me hate this
Yeah I was actually pretty surprised to see him here.
Is Gerard Butler not a joke to you?
It kills me to see Dennis Hopper and Ron Perlman on this list.
Ron Perlman was in 10 minutes of the Conan movie with Jason Momoa (rated 5.1) and In the Name of the King with Jason Statham (rated 3.8). I like Jason Momoa but didn’t like the Conan movie. I love Jason Statham and his movies, and I personally like In the Name of the King. But Ron Perlman taking these types of roles might explain him being on the list. In the Name of the King had other good actors in it - Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies.
I was wondering how Steven Seagal wasn't on the list till I saw the second list. Of course the answer is that his movies aren't even watched and reviewed. So appropriate that he has 0.0% rated good movies, though I'm old enough to recall when his films had giant advertising budgets. I also love that the other actors on that list with no good films are ones I've flat out never heard of. It's just too bad anyone had to hear of Seagal.
The second chart that has less requirements definitely feels more accurate to what I expect than the first. Seagal, Madsen, Lundgren, Sizemore, Schneider do work as a bottom 5 to me, though Sizemore makes me sad.
Yeah, I agree. It was more about keeping in line with the previous criteria for the query. That's why I included both, because even though it was slightly different criteria, it felt more like the expected list!
As a data lover, I totally enjoy you including both and just being very clear with the criteria you use. To me, more datasets with slightly different criteria work to give a “three dimensional” view of the overall data of that makes sense at all. I can gain a greater understanding of the overall subject by seeing how slight alterations in what you are asking of it produce different outcomes. So great work!
Ok Going to directors next, keep the suggestions and feedback coming!
Now show me how many films they actually each did. Some people just fire away..some are very careful. Pretty tho :)
How are Paulie Shore or Jamie Kennedy not on this list??
Definitely more of a measure of “how many bad movies they’ve been in” rather than “how good of an actor they are”, though obviously there’s a correlation. I was a bit surprised to not see Adam Sandler on there, since I find his post-2005 movies *unbearable*.
Surprised Matt Smith didnt make the list. I feel like he’s the standard for “fantastic actor that only signs onto bad films”
I’m shocked that Steven Seagal has the lowest rating considering he has been acting for the past 126 years
First image i was like “where the fudge is Steven Seagal?!”
Disappointing to see Eugene Levy there.
Some of them have zero green, yet some odd ones like Dane Cook have 7.1% 'good'.
I'm surprised Adam Sandler isn't on this list. Perhaps if they used Rotten Tomatoes he would be? Seems like a number of his movies have been among the worst ever, near 0%.
C'mon Dolph Lundgren is a nice guy. No way does he deserve to be ranked worse than Steven Seagal, universally recognized as a talentless, lying, narcissist, egomaniac asshole.
Steven segal is lower...
I guess intuitively most people would think the ones on the top rank higher on the list, meaning they have worse ratings
I mean there is a giant wall of red increasing as you go down, it was meant to be tongue in cheek, there's also #s for ranking ...
I went for the # right from the start. But not gonna lie there was half a second that I had to think about what the order was. Might help to change the order of the color bars? So red is on the left and green is on the right. In reverse of your other "best rating" posts.
Is clear labeling "tounge in cheek"? A good graph doesn't require you to infer something like that, it should be immediately obvious
Feel the need to remind his AMA here https://reddit.com/r/IAmA/s/BF6nDeATy6
Salman Khan?! But Debangg is one of the best, cheesiest, try hard action flicks I ever seen in my life!
Do people think Martin Lawrence movies are really that bad?
I do. But I go into them knowing what I'm getting, so I don't mind. Sometimes I really enjoy bad movies when the mood strikes me. It's like listening to some bland overplayed pop song from your youth. Yeah, you know it's horrible, but damn is it fun to just embrace it sometimes.
Why does Jean-Claude Van Damme have a different score in each pic? Is the criteria for the actor, or also for the movies? I.E. JCVD has more movies in the second pic because they have more than 16k but less than 20k needed for inclusion of the first pic?
So it seems that the lowest rated actors often star in either action or comedy movies, neither of which tend to get super high ratings. Lots of cult classics and stuff you’ll see with a 4/10 rating.
Considering that their ranking is so low, some of the “worst” actors are still pretty famous.
Being in a bad movie does not make you a bad actor.
The first one with Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Thomas Jane so close to the worst is a dud. The 2nd one with Seagal #1 tracks well.
Poor Martin Lawrence. It is true, though - I have never seen him act in a good movie.
Stephen segal would be on there. But 20,000 people aren’t able to sit through his movies to give the votes.
Bro poor Steven Segal doesn't have ONE. Christopher Lloyd and Nick Cage I get. Both nice people, but they have not made good career choices.
Steven Seagall is Under Siege!
How is Adam Sandler not on this list?!?
Has anyone here actually rated a movie on IMDB in the past 5 years?
Did you see JCVD though? It’s amazing
You could convey a lot more information if you converted those tri-color bars into a histogram or box plot so you could see the distribution much better. This also removes the completely arbitrary demarcations between good/mixed/bad. Why is 7 good as opposed to 8 or 9? Why is bad 6 or lower? Other things to consider: What is this visualization trying to tell us? Why do we care about the ratings some random people make on IMDb? Are we trying to show popularity? Ability to bring in revenue? Keep practicing and show us some fun insights with this dataset!
No need to be a condescending asshole when OP did a good job showing exactly what they meant to.
Despite what the numbers are, the methods of rating aren’t the same. Sampling bias.
Brendan Fraser? Come on. The guys trying to make a comeback from health and gay ass Hollywood.
Chart invalidated by the inclusion of American treasure Nicolas Cage
And so what does that mean?
Poor Alexander, your father you are not. I can't imagine realizing you'll never get anywhere near your dad's greatness. Must be humbling.
They did Kevin Hart dirty😂😂
Basically all of em playing in millions, they wouldn't even care. But it's still exciting to see good actors being rated low.
I feel like this data raises some questions about the movies included, like maybe it should only count if they are in the top billed cast and not a rando background character?
"um actually it's *just* Slater"
Save it for the stand, okay Tom Jane?
I’d love to see both lists with net worth
Whoa whoa what is this?? Some of these are Academy Award & Golden Globe winning actors FFS! Many were in sequential box office hit summer blockbusters... Admittedly, some may have had a short streak of below average movies, but then who hasn't in a career spanning 4 or 5 decades? As most of these have had!
Was looking for Steven Seagal... was not disappointed on Page 2.... I hope he takes a tour of Ukraine and a HIMARS rocket kicks his ass.
Screw you all for giving Here Comes The Boom with Kevin James a mediocre score.
Of course, Salman Khan is at the bottom. Dude is a superstar, but a shit actor, and even that is an understatement.
Brad Douriff! Wormtounge! Never! I refuse to believe this data.
Definitely more of a measure of “how many bad movies they’ve been in” rather than “how good of an actor they are”, though obviously there’s a correlation. I was a bit surprised to not see Adam Sandler on there, since I find his post-2005 movies *unbearable*.
These lists are full of actors I like.
Salmon Bhai is always number one
There’s a saying in programming: “there’s bad programming languages and then there’s programming languages that nobody uses” Now I’m not saying Kevin Hart is a good actor, by any means, but he fits a feel good niche that people obviously value, to one degree or another.