By The Numbers: Charlie Sheen

With all the attention he's gotten over the years for the various things he's done off camera, Charlie sheen should be glad that this column only focuses on his body of work. Interestingly, I can actually pinpoint the moment I became aware of who he was. I was 10, watching an Amazing Stories marathon on my new favorite the Sci-Fi Channel (SyFy, is a stupid rebrand) and my sister informed me that he was someone outside of that episode. I found that episode boring. Not a great first impression.

A quick rundown of how this all works for anyone new.

I take all the films an actor or actress has been in and break them down into three categories, 'Good' 'Bad' and 'Ok.' I do not count TV appearances or Made for TV movies. Afterwards a quick analysis will show whether or not they're a good actor by the numbers. Invariably there is a 2-3 +/- point bias on a person to person basis. Also, since 'ok' movies are not bad they count towards the positive column in the overall figuring. If by the numbers they fall in the 50 - 60% range, they're a bad actor; 61 - 70% good actor, and 71 - 80% great actor. Anything higher is unlikely, but will be classified as "elite."

Now then, let's see those numbers:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Last week I was nice to his late Red Dawn costar. Today I'm straight up no nonsense again. I knew early on that this was not good for him. He should have learned early on that working with his brother does not equal good. Well, maybe with the exception of Young Guns, but then I always felt the wrong brother died in that movie.  So with 56% negative over 44% positive (ouch) Charlie Sheen is officially in the 'bad' column.

Look, Charlie, despite my tone in this, I do like you occasionally. You can be funny in the right role, and actually can act when you feel up to it. But as long as you continue to load up on "Scary Movies" you're just never going to rate any better.

Thanks to Pat for this week's choice!