Act-Off: Who's on Worst?

It's an Act-Off. I apologize in advance if I try to come off like David Foster Wallace, but I've been reading his book, "Consider the Lobster," and it's fantastic, and I think that whenever you read an author who just floors you, inspires you, etc., you automatically try to imitate their writing, which I'm sure is subconsciously/actively occurring here (but I promise to have less footnotes). Either way, if you enjoy extremely well-articulated writing, well-thought-out arguments, and quality insight on seemingly simple, but actually complex topics then I highly recommend that you pick up "Consider the Lobster." End of sales pitch for which I received nothing.

Anyway, the reason we're here is, I made a joke the other day about Freddie Prinze, Jr. being the worst actor ever, but then I immediately thought of Casper Van Dien, who is atrocious, which begs the question, who is worse? And the only way to do both of them justice is to dig deep and evaluate who has less talent, and who, ultimately, should never be allowed to be in a movie that gets released in a theater ever again. It's an Act-off.

Admittedly, I'm thinking Casper Van Dien ("CVD") must be worse because he hasn't been in many movies, while Freddie Prinze, Jr. ("FPJ") has somehow been in more than five. But it's quality not quantity that is at issue (poor quality, in fact), so the only thing to do is jump right in.

FPJ's first acting role was on one episode of Family Matters where he played "Tough Guy." That casting director, hopefully, is not currently employed. [Editorial aside: then again, anyone acting across from Jaleel White's "Urkel" character was by default a "tough guy."] Then he starred as "Jeff" in an ABC Afterschool Special, called "Too Soon for Jeff," where Jeff, a high-schooler, had to deal with his girlfriend's pregnancy (apparently played by, of all people, Jessica Alba, who, although she also cannot act, is very hot, see below).

This "special" sets a realistic bar for FPJ in terms of IMDB.com ratings. Too Soon for Jeff received a rating of 3.5 out of 10 (125 people voting). In his defense, this was an afterschool special with more focus on message than quality plot-driven drama and entertainment, as is easily witnessed by the solitary "memorable quote" posted on IMDB.com:

Jeff: Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

Mega-actor Ed Begley, Jr. also stars.

After those forays into television, FPJ was cast in his first motion picture, To Gillian on her 37th Birthday, where he got to kiss Claire Danes. About the experience, FPJ acknowledges, "Kissing Claire was good. I was really nervous, though. I hadn't kissed many girls in real life." Thanks for the update, Fred. From there he received critical accolades (as I recall, but not supported in any way) in The House of Yes, which with a 6.4 out of 10 (3,875 votes) is an early front-runner for FPJ's highest rated film (according to the highly-biased individuals voting at IMDB.com*) [Editorial comment: the fact that FPJ has only a minor role in the film can't be ignored as a reason for its greater than 6.0 rating - this was really a Parker Posey picture.]

*More on this later.

From here FPJ starred next in his most recognizable role (in my opinion) as Jennifer Love Hewitt's boyfriend/potential serial killer (spoiler alert: he didn't do it) in I Know What You Did Last Summer. If this were Jeopardy, the answer being: What is not studying acting? At 5.3 out of 10 (30,888 votes) we see a regression towards the mean with respect to how well FPJ's films are received. In what will make more sense later, I can only hypothesize now that the reason for the +5.0 rating is again the result of other factors distinct from FPJ's performance (i.e., the size of JLH's breasts poking out in her mandatory Horror movie skank-tank).

Next is the movie Sparkler, which I defy anyone to have seen, including FPJ, his friends, closest family members, and the director. Capitalizing on the financial success of IKWYDLS (the film grossed $125.5 MM), the film's producers quickly released (the next year) the sequel I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, which reprised Mr. Prinze, Jr.'s role from the first movie (and also starred Brandy from TV's Moesha and her now non-existent R&B career, and Mekhi Phifer from the following films: Clockers, High School High, and 8-Mile). With a 4.0 out of 10 rating (19,587 votes) we have now entered what I will now call, "The FPJ Zone." The FPJ Zone is the string of consecutive FPJ starring films that range from 3.5 to 5.5 out of 10 (still on the ubiquitous IMDB.com scale). It's astonishing, the number of consecutive, major, mass-released films he was paid to act (I use this word in the traditional sense) in that couldn't even muster a better than 55% success rate (Defined term: success = whether an audience more often than not finds at least some merit in withstanding the length of the film and which I'm arbitrarily equating with at least a 5.5 out of 10 because it proves my argument more than 5.0 or 5.1 out of 10 does).

To illustrate this conflagration of wasted studio dollars, please see below:

• 1998 - I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (4.0 - all ratings are out of 10) (6% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes*)
  
• 1999 - She's All That (5.4) (37% RT)
  
• 1999 - Wing Commander (3.6) (9% RT - Budget: $30MM; Domestic gross: $11MM)
  
• 2000 - Down to You (4.4) (4% RT)
  
• 2000 - Boys and Girls (4.8) (12% RT)
  
• 2001 - Head Over Heels (4.8) (10% RT)
  
• 2001 - Summer Catch (4.5) (7% RT)
  
• 2002 - Scooby Doo (4.7) (28% RT)
  
• 2004 - Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (the actual title) (4.8) (21% RT)
  
• 2005 - Shooting Gallery (straight-to-video) (5.1) (N/A RT)
  

*Rotten Tomatoes is a film website known for compiling ratings and reviews from multiple sources and generating a "Fresh/Rotten" rating based on the number of positive reviews. In order for a "Fresh" rating, at least 60% of all reviews must be positive. Films with 75% positive reviews are "Certified Fresh." [Editorial analysis: The fresh factor may be a better indicator of film quality since it's composed of film critics (including people who have no real basis to consider themselves as film critics, but do anyway - e.g., Dustin Putman of TheMovieBoy.com; MaryAnn Johanson, Flick Filosopher; Fred Topel, Can Magazine; etc.) rather than the ratings on IMDB.com, which, as mentioned earlier, are just the votes of the general public who decided to waste their time voting on films. It leads one to believe that the reason why so many of FPJ's films received 10% or less fresh ratings, but on IMDB.com still received plus 4.0 ratings (when would expect to find a rating between 0.0 and 1.0) is twofold. First, non-film critics, as non-critics, are probably too nice and don't want to come off overly critical, thereby unintentionally adding a slight bump to a films' overall rating. Second, the number of viewers who really hated a movie, and who would rate it in the lower portion of the scale, are probably too disgusted with said film to waste any more of their time voting on how bad said film was on an internet website which otherwise has no effect on their lives. [Note: this is similar to the "used-car problem," where only the worst used-cars are available because any quality used-car never enters the marketplace because (a) the owner never sells or (b) the owner sells to a close personal contact. Here, the most seething (and, most likely, accurate) ratings never make it to the "marketplace."] There may also be a third reason: the viewing public, once it learns about a film's poor quality from respected critics, and supposing it values the critics' opinions in the first place, would logically be less likely to see the awful film and would, therefore, be unavailable to vote on its quality on IMDB.com (unless certain people just submitted their vote anyway, which could only be based on indirect third-parties' reviews and opinions since they never saw the film themselves, which I submit is disingenuous and probably too far-fetched to give credence to). Whereas, on the other hand, critics are required to see movies in order to review them for the public's benefit. So the ratings and reviews of critics are probably more represented than the reviews and ratings of the viewing public (noting, as a grain of salt, that critics are, by their very nature, critical).]

That's ten films in eight years, which are recognized far and wide as subpar. If you look at all of his films at Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see that zero of them were rated "Fresh." Not to belabor the point, but in over twelve movies, not one received a greater than 60% approval rate. No one's faulting FPJ for not getting nominated for an Academy Award. But he can't even make a film where you say, "yeah, that was a good movie," or whatever it is you would say after seeing a better than average flick. You wonder whether (a) everyone in Hollywood owes his agent something or (b) being married to Sarah Michelle Gellar is vastly more advantageous than simply being able to tell people that you're married to TV's Buffy.

Then he did some more television work (nothing that stands out) and then some more films, which also apparently went straight-to-video. [Side note: if they were released in theaters, then I was unaware of all of them, and never saw any advertising for any of them, which given the state of media and the proliferation of advertising seems unlikely.] Although, in his defense, a couple of those films did surpass 6.0 on the scale. None, however, surpassed 6.4.*

*No RT ratings were applicable.

One would think that by 2001, FPJ would stop getting casted. Summer Catch is really the watershed, when studios and casting directors should have come to an implicit agreement to blackball FPJ from Hollywood. This did not happen. Why not? We will get to that later.

Casper Van Dien made four feature (non-made-for-television) films. Three in theaters, one straight-to-video. Those movies were: Starship Troopers (a cult classic and his big break), Tarzan and the Lost City (the movie following his big break, which completely ruined any acting capital raised from starring in Paul Verhoeven's cult classic Starship Troopers), Sleepy Hollow (a bit part in an otherwise Tim Burton/Johnny Depp vehicle), and Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (umm, yeah) [Additional note: Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation's (also straight-to-video) main actor was Richard Burgi, whom I had never heard of before]. The rest of his surprisingly long career (18 years and counting) has been in television. Lots and lots of television. CVD has appeared in well-known shows such as Beverly Hills 90210, One Life to Live, Monk, Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman, Married With Children, The Outer Limits, Titans, Watch Over Me, etc. He's also starred in countless made-for-TV movies: Dracula 3000, The Tracker, The Collection, The Omega Code, and a shitload of others you never heard of or watched.

His major motion pictures and ratings:

• Starship Troopers (7.0 - 69,900 votes) (62% RT)
  
• Tarzan and the Lost City (3.8 - 972 votes) (6% RT)
  
• Sleepy Hollow (7.5 - 89,426 votes) (72% RT)
  
• Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (4.6 - 6,128 votes) (60% RT - only based on 5 reviews, however)
  

CVD's only lead role (as Tarzan) garnered him a 3.8 (6% RT). His other major movies are essentially non-CVD affairs. Starship Troopers was a hit because it had (a) cool-looking alien insect creatures getting shot to pieces with machine guns (comment: but this is a futuristic sci-fi war movie, so where are the laser guns?) (b) Denise Richards showing off her goods (c) lots of camp and political invective (the costumes were straight rip-offs of Nazi uniforms), and (d) was directed by a guy known for these movies: Total Recall, Robocop, Basic Instinct. Sure, Starship Troopers is awful. Really bad acting all around. In fact, my friend and I agreed that the movie is a comedy through and through. Not an action movie, not an adventure movie, not a drama. The only snag was that no one let the actors in on the secret. They all think they are making a space-epic on par with the original Star Wars. In other words, 2001: A Space Odyssey meets Saving Private Ryan. In reality, it's Spaceballs meets Mars Attacks meets Wild Things.

Starship Troopers 3: Marauder is essentially a retread of Starship Troopers, but without a good director or story, but who wants a story when the movie is called Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. And considering it's straight-to-video status and the paucity of substantial critical reviews, I think it's acceptable and appropriate to not considerate it as a benchmark for CVD's acting chops. Which leaves us with Sleepy Hollow. Well-received by critics, well-acted, well-directed, except CVD's role is so minor that none of these accolades should pass on to him. I argue that the only film on which to base his talent is Tarzan and the Lost City (and Starship Troopers, which although rated "Fresh" portrayed some of the worst acting the last century) and the verdict is he's awful.

So based on this who is the worst actor? I've already illustrated how FPJ can't make a movie that people want to see except maybe young children who have no sense of talent, but are deeply entranced by a CGI-dog with phonetic disorders saying, "Raggy," "Ramburgers," and "Rokay, I rill." I'm fairly certain that no one saw Scooby Doo or it's abysmal sequel (somehow rated higher than the original at IMDB.com) to see Freddie Prinze, Jr. If there was any human actor that got anyone excited about the possibility of a live-action Scooby Doo movie it was Matthew Lillard (who, in fact, has starred in five FPJ films) as Shaggy. He had the cracking voice, gangly limbs, et al. There was, at least, some belief that he was well-cast. The truth is, people went to see Scooby Doo to see...Scooby Doo (to the tune of $276,294,164 worldwide).

On the other hand you have CVD.

There is a reason why there is an FPJ Zone. There is a reason why CVD is no longer casted for major motion pictures (FPJ too, now, thank god). They are both really, really bad actors. Their facial expressions are nil, their understanding of a scene is zilch, their idea of acting is being themselves, but dressed up in different clothes. I wonder whether CVD while dressed in a loin cloth as Tarzan thought to himself: I was raised by animals, I'm primitive, but I have an innate sense of justice and morals, and I'm going to try to convey this through my performance, or if, I'm in amazing shape right now, I look great, my face is ruggedly handsome, and I'm half-naked, let's do this! was his jumping-off spot. Who knows? What we do know is that no one thought Tarzan was a good movie. But who's fault is it really?

Let's step back for a second. FPJ and CVD are two better than average looking men (probably). But they aren't the only good looking guys who can't act. I'd say the problem is systemic. [Preface: you (and me) may not find the guys named in the following list attractive, but generally speaking these guys are considered attractive by social standards.]

A Non-Exclusive List of Actors Generally-Considered Good-Looking Who Also Can't Act* (in random order):

*Trust me.

1. James Van Der Beek (Texas Rangers, not the baseball team)
   
2. Paul Walker (Meet the Deedles, Timeline)
   
3. Joshua Jackson (plenty)
   
4. Vin Diesel (debatable as good-looking; see Babylon A.D., A Man Apart)
   
5. Brandon Routh (Yes, even Superman)
6. Chris Evans (Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, (the inevitable) Fantastic Four 3: Whatever Dumb Title They Come Up With)
   
7. Ryan Reynolds (Smokin' Aces, National Lampoon's Van Wilder, etc.)
8. Brendan Fraser (Journey to the Center of the Earth is a good representative sample)
   
9. Chris Klein (Rollerball, hello)
   
10. Jerry O'Connell (Kangaroo Jack, Tomcats)
    
11. Ashton Kutcher (See entire career)
    
12. Seann William Scott (Mr. Woodcock, Dukes of Hazzard, Southland Tales, Bulletproof Monk)
    
13. Matthew Perry (Serving Sara and The Whole Ten Yards)
    

A Non-Exclusive List of Actors Generally-Considered Good-Looking Who Act Sometimes, But Are Still Bad, All Things Considered* (in random order):

*Trust me, again. The guys on this list will make a good movie, they will even garner critical acclaim for their performances from time to time, the occasional Oscar nomination, but they aren't coming home with the awards. They're showing up in a nice tux, smiling big smiles, grinning with shiny white teeth, the object of lots of candid shots during the ceremony, but going home empty-handed.

1. Brad Pitt (Seven Years in Tibet, Cool World, Troy)
   
2. Ben Affleck (Gigli. Gigli. Gigli)
3. Tom Cruise (I actually don't mind him, and I think he tries hard, but maybe too hard)
   
4. Keanu Reeves (See Ashton Kutcher)
5. Charlie Sheen (Even with all of the bad films he's starred in, he, at least, has Platoon and Wall Street on his resume)
   
6. Colin Farrell (For every In Bruges, there's an Alexander or Pride and Glory or...)
   
7. Orlando Bloom (Elizabethtown, really not good, Troy, again)
   
8. Ryan Phillippe (Antitrust)
   
9. Kevin Costner (The Postman, and, for better or worse, Waterworld will never be forgotten as bombs) [Exception to the rule: Yes, he won an Academy Award for Dances With Wolves.]
   
10. Wesley Snipes (Art of War, comes to mind)
    
11. John Travolta (Battlefield Earth, 'nuff said)
    
12. James Franco (Annapolis or Flyboys, anyone?)
    

Now, here are 25 other actors who have made a shitload of movies in their careers. How come they can't act? Well, I have a theory. [This also applies to female actors.]

When you're a good-looking actor you're more likely to get a role. And that increased likelihood equals increased opportunities to act, which equals an actor being in more movies, and the more movies an actor is in means the more likely that actor will be considered for other films because that actor is now recognizable, but the whole time he never really learned to act. You coasted on your looks [and for FPJ, he also had Hollywood connections because of his deceased comedian dad], I get it, and more power to you, but don't try to tell me otherwise.

When FPJ says, "[Acting is] the only thing I'm good at. I know how to create and make people feel something. Honestly, if I didn't do this, I would just have some minimum-wage job in New Mexico, and I would go out on the weekends and make just enough money to pay my insurance and pay for a couple beers, and that would be it," it begs the question: Have you seen your own films? Because, he doesn't know how to create. He knows how to get on film and get paid for it.

But then he'll say, "I'm going to stop acting in the next few years because it's just too weird. You have to constantly be willing to live in a scary, emotional place, which is why actors are in therapy all the time." I doubt the world he lives in is scary or emotional. You're pretending to be a high school jock who's good at hacky-sack and turns the ugly duckling into the beautiful swan even though anyone with a pair of eyeballs could tell she was hot to begin with. You're pretending to live next door to 4 supermodels and Monica Potter (who's no slouch herself) and you're the love interest next door.* I don't think you're living in the same hellish, all-encompassing, mentally-strangulating world that Heath Ledger was living in or that Daniel Day-Lewis subjects himself to. [E.g, It's well-noted that for every role, DDL moves into a separate house away from his wife and children to "tap" into the character.]

*Here's an actual review of Head Over Heels from a film critic with the Kalamazoo Gazette, which I think hits the nail on the head: "When your script calls for a suave, mysterious leading man and the best you can come up with is the bubble-bright Freddie Prinze, Jr., it's time to do some serious recasting." Amen.

But when FPJ says, "Life is not about making dough or how many movies you can make in a year. It's about finding someone that you can share things with," I wholeheartedly agree and hope that he takes his own advice.

I guess the answer was there all along. FPJ, congratulations. And good luck.

Jared