Frank Langella: By The Numbers

I knew the name when he was suggested to me, but I couldn't automatically put a face to it. Course once I saw a picture I said, Oh... that prink. Which is probably not fair to a man that I'm sure is lovely in real life, but on screen he's pretty much made a career out of playing just that. Still, such issues have never mattered when the question is how good of an actor one is. That's why we run the numbers.

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 'Okay.' 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 let's see how the poor man's Christopher Lee did:

With a few exceptions in his lengthy resume (he's been acting since the 60's) he's made a career out of playing the guy you love to hate in films. Course that same career is made out of movies that I and well, most people it would seem, just hate period. Only in the last few years has he really started to make decent film choices. With 54% negative over 46% positive, he falls well short of the good column. If he continues choosing his roles better, who knows, he may be able to work his way out of the hole he's in. But I doubt it.

Thanks to Stephen for this week's pick.