Wednesday, October 27, 2010

By The Numbers: Robert Englund

Who better to cover this time of the year than Freddie Krueger himself? Having haunted many a child's (and adult's) nightmares through years of good and bad horror films he's about to be put to a test some would call a bad dream. He shall be tried as an actor.

First 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 have a look at this new nightmare:




I'm sure there are many horror fans who would be upset with this, but if they admit it in their hearts, they know it's right. The question sadly with most horror actors isn't if they'll do bad, but how bad they'll do. With 52% positive over 48% negative, he falls well outside of the good actor column. However in terms of Horror actors, that still puts him in a higher pantheon. Everything is relative I guess. I will admit, I did break one of my own rules with him. I counted V and put it in his good column even though it's a TV movie. It obviously wasn't going to help him much, so why not? Anyways, though he's delivered many campy performances and starred in a lot of bad things, he'll still always have a place of honor for the iconic roles he's played.


Who should I cover next? Tell me in the comments below.

12 comments:

  1. Surprised the bad wasn't a higher percentage. Was V factored in as well?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1000 maniacs wasn't bad. His cameo on Chuck was okay. Did this count Zombie Strippers?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marlene, You don't think he looks like a happy grandfather? lol

    Alex, I said towards the end that I broke my own no TV rule to include V. So that does skew it a couple points positive. Still not enough.

    Budd, As long as a film was seen by more than a few people I count it. I hadn't seen the movie in question so I had to refer to a friend on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nope, he does not look like a happy grandfather... a creepy grandfather yes

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know I have seen him in a few things but I don't remember his contribution or the movies so I guess that says it all for me. I see him as a total type cast with all incarnation of NOES.

    ReplyDelete
  6. He will always be remembered as a horror icon, and maybe the best of our generation, but in fairness to him TS he really is not a bad actor. In fact, you should check out some interviews with the man because he is a classically-trained and highly intelligent actor who fell into horror and remained typecast. Sure a lot of the films he is in nowadays are dung, but he is the diamond in the rough and I say that from non-biased standpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I started to watch Zombie Strippers and just couldn't look away. Not a great movie, but attention grabbing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let none of us forget Behind the Mask and 2001 Maniacs!

    ReplyDelete
  9. the poor guy has been stuck in the same rut for his entire career. He's close to 50/50 and I guess that's about right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. He's the guy that played Ernest in those Ernest movies, right?

    Do Wilfred Brimley next.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails