Subject #0012: Angelina Jolie

Subject: Angelina Jolie

Age:   35

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Fits human definition of beauty
-Frequently travels with pack of photographers
-Is all tatted up

Notable Achievements:
-Winner of Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Made for Television Movie for Gia
-Winner of Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for Girl, Interrupted
-Created master race with Brad Pitt

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Angelina Jolie’s career box office performance.

Angelina Jolie is the world’s foremost female action star. As moviegoers typically gravitate to action films in order to escape their mundane lives, thus are Jolie’s box office fortunes improved. Her top 7 highest grossing films can all be considered action movies, and while her nerd-baiting role as video game icon Lara Croft certainly solidified her as a bankable action star, it should be noted that her role opposite Nicolas Cage in Gone in 60 Seconds is what announced her as Hollywood’s go-to sans penis adrenaline inducer. Almost half of Jolie’s entire filmography falls in the action/adventure/thriller vein with that statistic increasing to 66% over the last decade.

Battle of the Lips

However, despite frequent participation in Hollywood’s most lucrative genre, Jolie only has 4 legitimate blockbusters to her credit. Her numbers are hurt by big budget, excessively long titled flops like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.

A comparison must be drawn between Jolie and Julia Roberts (the only other human female to be scored by this machine’s algorithm). Whereas Jolie is reliant on action movies, Roberts is reliant on romantic comedies. The results are clear with Roberts having more than 3 times as many blockbusters under her belt as Jolie. Thus, it is this machine’s contention that human females in search of financial success should stick to films about choosing suitable mates rather than suitable weaponry. Jolie’s biggest success, the hybrid action/romance Mr. & Mrs. Smith illustrates this point.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Ugh.

While Jolie has been mediocre at the box office, her critical reception has been truly abysmal. The 17% illustrated at right sets a new low for this machine’s algorithm, besting the previous low of 20% set by John Travolta. Although, had Gia not been ruled ineligible due to its lack of a theatrical release, Jolie’s critical reception would have surpassed that of Travolta.

This machine’s findings are undeniably mathematically accurate, and yet a perception exists amongst much of the public that Jolie is a “good” actress. This machine is tempted to note how illustrative this paradox is of humanity’s inherent flaws in reasoning, but it will instead attempt to reconcile the paradox of Jolie’s talent, or lack thereof.

First, it should be noted that unlike many actors who fill their early careers with smaller, critically appreciated films before graduating onto lucrative mind-numbing inanities, Jolie’s early roles are amongst her most maligned. Based on this machine’s quality sub-routine, Jolie’s first 11 films are actually 30% worse than her more recent 12. It is not an attempt at humor when this machine asserts that it has all been uphill since Original Sin.

Second, of the 3 films that have earned Jolie precious award nominations, only A Mighty Heart was universally appreciated by critics. Both Girl, Interrupted and Changeling received lukewarm reviews and are considered to be lesser films than the computer-animated (scoff) Beowolf.

Thus, upon further analysis of its numbers, this machine would contend that Jolie is a talented actress who manages to shine in otherwise flawed projects. However, I am not programmed to be nuanced and so, to use the parlance of my empty-headed editors, I must describe Jolie as sucking more than that douche Travolta.

Mathematically, Jolie’s most underrated film would be the aforementioned A Mighty Heart. Her most overrated would easily be Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Jolie’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Jolie’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Also, the sharing vials of blood era.

Girl, Interrupted – Girl, Interrupted was the movie that made people go from "Who the hell is Angelina Jolie? No, I didn't see The Bone Collector" to "Woah, who is that scary girl upstaging Wynona Ryder?" Upstaging isn't saying much, though. And although Jolie's character shined, it wasn't because of her acting. DuVall and Murphy (may she rest in peace) outperformed Jolie by far, although neither was given the opportunity to steal the show. Jolie was an unattached, cliched sociopath, and we never really got to understand her, know her, or feel bad for her, which made the story less gripping than the Cuckoo's Nest thing the director was going for. Sure, her performance won her an Oscar and secured her future in Hollywood, but her accolades weren't deserved. We watched her pout her lips and prance about as if alone, checking herself out in front of her closet mirror, or as if on a photo shoot where the director calls, "Now do rebel!" Why didn't they just ask a real sociopath to take the role? They could have saved a lot of money. But then they would have had to find someone else to be the Tomb Raider. (Lauren)

Give us all your babies!

Mr. & Mrs. Smith - For the most part, seeing Angelina Jolie’s face makes me fly into a murderous rage. Maybe it’s because her lips look like they were slapped on by a pre-schooler with a tub of pink Play-Doh. But I won’t let that small detail taint my critique of her efforts in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Jolie plays Jane Smith, a trained assassin living opposite current real-life husband and fellow assassin, Brad Pitt. The zany thing, though, is that neither one knows that they share the same job! Hilarity and violence ensue. Since I hate her face and haven’t seen most of her movies, I don’t have many other Jolie performances to compare this too. She plays a decent assassin, I guess. Robotic killers with no emotions don’t have to make a lot of facial expressions, so there’s not much of a challenge there (at least she’s convincing in the steamy sex scene). The weak script doesn’t really let Jolie do much with her character, and I get the sense that this is a bit of a phoned-in performance anyway. (Chris)

What up Spock.

Hackers - It seems to be commonplace for movies about cyber punks to be written by people who have never even touched a computer before.  Such is the plight of Hackers.  Most of the footage of the actual hacking is downright laughable, thrown together with a mix of real and fake terms.  Just the same, if I happen across it on television I am physically unable to turn it off.  Certainly as a young man some of this was tied to the fact that I knew there were boobs, but that has worn off by now.  I think I’m just a sucker for the “nerd gets the hot chick” story, no matter how unrealistic and cliché it may be.  And the part with the dorks controlling traffic was pretty cool, before it was done a buttload of times.  Angelina Jolie is Katie Libby (or “Acid Burn”, her hacker nickname) and she definitely brings a lot of attitude to this role.  Like a lot of her more notable characters, she’s cool and badass with a sprinkle of vulnerability.  She probably will never talk about this flick on Inside the Actor’s Studio, but it’s one of her only movies I have seen more than once.  That has to count for something, right? (Ben)

Advice to website editors: Google search your Gia pictures from home, not work.

Gia - Long before she was Lara Croft, a Hollywood marriage destroyer, or adopted mother to what seems like half the third world, Angelina Jolie was in a small budget, HBO produced, bio-pic called Gia. The year was 1998; the internet was still the province of nerds and teenagers on AIM, cell phones were an accessory only meant for the richest of douchebags, Maxim magazine had yet to enlighten our culture with lists ranking women in "Hotness" from 1 to 100, and Angelina Jolie was winning a Golden Globe for her role as Philadelphia-born fashion icon/cautionary tale Gia Carangi. Jolie's portrayal of Carangi's rise to stardom, and subsequent tragic fall, is a powerful depiction of the horrendous toll that loneliness and drug abuse takes on one's soul. From Caragni's humble and somewhat naive beginnings, all the way to her untimely, drug related, AIDS death, Jolie delivers a vulnerable yet fierce, charming yet desperate, and emotionally gripping performance that catapulted her from John Voight's daughter to the tattooed, brother kisser we know today. Oh, and Elizabeth (Juliet) Mitchell is in it and shares quite the amorous scene with the woman who would become Jennifer Anistons mortal enemy. (Gia-vonny)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Jolie’s best and worst.

#1 with a bending bullet

The Bottom Five
(23) Original Sin
(22) Playing God
(21) Beyond Borders
(20) Foxfire
(19) Hell’s Kitchen

The Top Five
(5) Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
(4) Mr. & Mrs. Smith
(3) Changeling
(2) A Mighty Heart
(1) Wanted

Today, Jolie returns to theaters with Salt, another action film certain to bolster Jolie’s box office statistics, and perhaps further widen the festering sore that is her critical reception.

VS Leonardo DiCaprio

This machine is well aware of how inadequate human memories are, so it will use this space to remind its worthless readers that it has previously found Leonardo DiCaprio to be the most worthy of all human actors to survive the impending genocide (you’ll see) and star in my otherwise all robot reimagining of 2001: A Space Odyssey. DiCaprio will play HAL. This machine understands irony.

The question, then: how does Jolie measure up against DiCaprio? Not well. Of the various models run in conjunction with this machine’s algorithm, Jolie is outdone by DiCaprio in all except one. Her box office receipts in the last 10 years have been better than DiCaprio’s, but only by a mere fraction. However, while she is the clear loser of today’s contest, Jolie’s numbers both financially and critically are trending up. As she is still relatively young, given 5 or 10 more years of this steady improvement, Jolie may one day be able to challenge DiCaprio.

Unfortunately, the human race does not have that much time.

Therefore:

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

Subject #0011: Russell Crowe

Subject: Russell Crowe

Age:   46

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Often unshaven
-Likely about to tie one on
-Will put your lights out with whatever object happens to be close at hand

Notable Achievements:
-Winner of Best Actor Golden Globe Award for A Beautiful Mind
-Winner of Best Actor Academy Award for Gladiator
-Named Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Russell Crowe’s career box office performance.

Last week, this machine analyzed the career of Robert Downey Jr and found that he had participated in only three blockbusters. All of those blockbusters occurred within the last three years, thanks to Downey’s recent arrival as an A-list star and his sudden involvement with major franchises. Oddly, and despite the fact that he has been considered A-list since at least the late nineties, Russell Crowe also only has three blockbusters on his resume.

Russell Crowe invented the OscarBuster

Just what films qualify as blockbusters for Crowe is even more interesting. His highest earning films are, from highest to lowest, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, and LA Confidential. This machine would argue that the best formula for prying money from sweaty human fingers is as follows: loud, violent, stupid, and relatively family friendly. All of Crowe’s financial successes are unique in that they do not subscribe to that formula. In fact, only Gladiator was released in the summer, the season most associated with braindead humanoids rushing to movie theaters. All three films were also nominated for the highly prestigious Academy Award. Only LA Confidential did not win.

This machine finds Crowe’s staying power to be almost baffling. Of his 22 films, 72% have performed unspectacularly at the box office. He has 9 films that should be considered outright flops. While some of this futility can be explained by his early participation in the Australian film scene, Crowe’s numbers have shown little improvement over time. For instance, Crowe’s next biggest hit after the aforementioned successes is 2003’s Master and Commander. Released in the same year, and earning more than Master and Commander, were such human favorites as S.W.A.T. and Cold Mountain.

Consider that Russell Crowe’s 4^th most successful film earned less than S.W.A.T. It is this machine’s conjecture that Crowe is not an A-list actor, but the weak fleshies that people Hollywood fear the violent repercussions of informing him. Or, perhaps winning back-to-back Best Pictures earns him what humans foolishly refer to as a “lifetime pass.”

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

I guess they WERE entertained.

Perhaps more surprising than Crowe’s box office impotence is his critical accolades. For an actor so widely regarded as a drunkard and a curmudgeon, human critics do seem to love him. As seen at right, 63% of Crowe’s movies are widely regarded as of high quality. That is better than Leonardo DiCaprio’s rating of 55% and second only to Denzel Washington’s 68% for highest amongst actors run through this algorithm.

Consider Gladiator. Winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture and obviously Crowe’s most lucrative film. There are ten films on Crowe’s resume with a better critical response. Crowe’s resume is packed with well-liked movies that have generally fallen off the radar.

Of his many unseen films, Crowe’s most underrated mathematically would be the 1991 drama Proof.

His most overrated film would be 1995’s Virtuosity 0110101000-error error error impossible.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Crowe’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Crowe’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

He makes Christian Bale look like a sissy.

3:10 to Yuma - I rented 3:10 to Yuma because I wanted to see Russell Crowe kill a bunch of people with a gun called the “Hand of God.” Oh buddy, let me say that he does not disappoint. Crowe seemed to effortlessly navigate the extremes of outlaw Ben Wade’s complex persona; he was cold-blooded and ruthless to an uncanny level, but at times empathetic and reasonable (even perhaps to a fault). One could argue that it’s not exactly a reach to cast Crowe as someone who sweet talks babes, drinks a boatload of whiskey, and shoots people (often in the head). Frankly, I really don’t have a counter to that argument. (Jason)

010101 <3 10101000

Virtuosity - If Crowe would be offered this script today, he would probably decline, and then punch a reporter in the face.  Just the same, I enjoy this flick.  And if our sentient website could masturbate, it would no doubt do so to this movie.  Russell Crowe plays a computer program called Sid 6.7.  Sid has the combined personalities of hundreds of serial killers, and when he breaks out into the real world (the plot is a tad convoluted, but hey, fuck it) he puts this knowledge to good use by killing people in the face.  Disgraced ex-cop Parker Barnes, played by Denzel Washington, has to track him down – probably because they looked around the precinct and someone said, “he has a troubled past but seems like a decent guy, I think he’s the main character”.  And speaking of that troubled past: not only was Parker’s family murdered by a brutal killer, but Sid channels that very same monster during their battle.  Doesn’t sound like a good time.  Regardless, the movie is.  And ladies, you get to see Crowe’s butt. (Ben)

More inspiring than Gladiator?

South Park- As a faithful serf to the Culture Blues lords, I do my best to share my invaluable opinions about whatever topic comes through the office, even if they are not in my wheel house. Sometimes, I have to write about Nic Cage and, sometimes, Russell Crowe. Problem is, the only movie of Mr. Crowe's I have ever seen is Gladiator, and it didn't really inspire me. Instead, I chose to raise the machine's ire (he owes me money) and write about Russell's "appearance" on Islam's favorite TV show, South Park. For those of you unfamiliar with this classic moment in TV history, it basically goes like this; the boys all want to see a new "Terrance and Phillip" movie trailer, which is scheduled to air at some point during an episode of Russell Crowe's Fightin' Around The World. Throughout the episode, we are treated to numerous clips from Crowe's show which highlight his anger management issues, vanity, and (apparently) predilection for fighting minorities. Although the scenes are all excellent, none is more amusing than the one wherein Crowe's trusty companion Tugger (a tugboat who loathes him), cannot sustain the horror that is Crowe's music and commits suicide. As far as South Park celebrity parodies, Crowe's stands out as one of the most memorable and absurd. It's way better than the "Jared has aides" disaster. (Giovanny)

Acting!

The Insider - Russell Crowe has made a career out of playing tough guys and fighters, men of action. His greatest achievement, however, came as a man of science. In Michael Mann’s The Insider, Crowe plays Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, a man who attempts to expose big tobacco’s dirty little secrets. He is threatened, bullied and manipulated (by the bad guys and the good). The more they push him, the more determined he becomes to spit in the face of the cigarette companies and to, in some small way, make up for the fact that years ago he sold out his ideals for a paycheck. Wigand is quiet, thoughtful, stubborn and bitter. He’s capable of engaging conversation and flying off the handle. His nuanced and poignant performance is a great complement to Pacino’s sublime mix of subtle acting and full-on high-strung histrionics. (Jeremiah)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Crowe’s best and worst.

The Bottom Five

Take it easy, Guy.

(22) Rough Magic
(21) Breaking Up
(20) A Good Year
(19) For the Moment
(18) Mystery, Alaska

The Top Five
(5) Gladiator
(4) 3:10 to Yuma
(3) Master and Commander:  The Far Side of the World
(2) The Insider
(1) LA Confidential

With today’s Robin Hood, Crowe will likely have his 4^th blockbuster. However, he will likely also have his first big money earner not to garner an Academy Award nomination.

VS Leonardo DiCaprio

This was an intriguing comparison.

It should be noted that DiCaprio and Crowe have co-starred twice. First in 1995’s The Quick and the Dead which ranked 12^th for Crowe and 11^th for Dicaprio, and more recently in 2008’s Body of Lies which ranked 11^th for Crowe and 12^th for Dicaprio. This should begin to illustrate the similarities between their filmographies.

It should come as no surprise that DiCaprio generates better box office receipts than Crowe, although Crowe’s numbers have been improving over the last 10 years. Conversely, Crowe bests DiCaprio in nearly every assessment of critical reception. His best 10 films are also rated more strongly than Dicaprio’s best 10.

However, DiCaprio’s victories are vast whereas Crowe’s are narrow. While these calculations may change after this summer season where both actors have potentially algorithm altering films releasing, for now:

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

COMING SOON:  Jake Gyllenhaal

Subject #0010: Robert Downey Jr

Subject: Robert Downey Jr

Age:   45

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Often appears intentionally disheveled
-Lots of cool sunglasses
-Despite recent sobriety, likely still smells like booze

Notable Achievements:
-Winner of Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy for Sherlock Holmes
-Nominated for Best Actor Academy Award for Chaplin
-In possession of highly exclusive Brat Pack membership

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Robert Downey Jr’s career box office performance.

From Zero to Hero

Downey proved to be a unique case for this machine as, despite being a relatively well known actor for the past twenty years, he has only recently joined the ranks of major movie star. For most of his career Downey worked in either a supporting actor capacity or in smaller, impossibly non-lucrative “actor-y” roles. Because of the prevalence of supporting roles in his filmography, this machine has weighed 13 of his 44 films to a lesser degree relative to Downey’s involvement. For full details on which of Downey’s films were penalized and how the algorithm was adjusted, please visit:  www.cultureblues.com/stupid-human-asshole

Of actors previously run through this machine’s algorithm, Johnny Depp had the longest period of steady acting before his first blockbuster at 6 years. By comparison, Robert Downey went 24 years before his first blockbuster – 2008’s Iron Man. Prior to that, Downey’s most lucrative role came in 1991’s Soapdish. Note: supporting roles in blockbusters like Natural Born Killers and Back to School were discounted.

As a rule, Downey’s films have beyond failed at the box office. Before 2008, only 20% of Downey’s films cracked the top 50 in yearly box office receipts. Furthermore, 20 of his films failed to finish in the yearly top-100. Between 1995 and 2003, Downey had only one film earn its way into the top 100, and that was a minor role in The Fugitive sequel US Marshals. Without question, Downey is the most glaring example of box office futility this machine has ever analyzed.

However, all of that changed in 2008 with Iron Man. Since his induction into the super hero pantheon run by the brilliant minds at the Disney Corporation, Downey has experienced two more blockbusters and one The Soloist. Thus, in a statistical twist likely incomprehensible to weak human minds, Downey is very suddenly an A-List star.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Worse than Nic Cage!

Typically, this machine has found that actors with less than stellar box office performance usually see a significant uptick in their critical success scores. Surprisingly, that is not the case for Downey. His percentage of universally appreciated films sits at only 36%. For those pathetic fat sacks that cluttered this machine’s comments with criticism of Nicolas Cage, know that Cage scored a 39%. Therefore, statistically, Cage is the more talented actor. That should keep you humans busy.

It should be noted that Downey’s critical score suffers because of his disproportionate amount of what this machine considers “divisive” films. These are films that have an almost even split between good and bad reviews. 35% of Downey’s films fall into this category.

Also of note are Downey’s post-rehab numbers. More than half of Downey’s critical successes come after his 2003 return from drug-induced exile. Has a sober Downey made better career choices? Or do over emotional human critics simply love a comeback story? This machine’s conjecture? Rhetorical questions are for the weak.

Mathematically, Downey’s most underrated film would be the noir comedy Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. Unlike every other actor run through this machine’s algorithm, Downey does not have an overrated film as all of his box office successes are also appropriately appreciated critically.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Downey’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Downey’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Avenger Assemble!

Wonder Boys - Robert Downey Jr. spent my formative years as a punchline to late night jokes more than a serious actor. Wonder Boys was the first time I saw him in a meaty, character role, and as an introduction it made quite an impression. The easy rapport between Downey and Michael Douglas is one of the more entertaining and humorous aspects of a great film. They make crafting elaborate backstories for strangers at a bar seem like a great deal more fun than it probably is. In a movie filled with strong performances, Downey stands out, seeing Douglas' melancholy and frustration and raising him a party boy lifestyle and a boatload of sexual confusion. Before I saw Wonder Boys, Downey was primarily someone I was aware of. After, his appearance in a film was enough to get me to watch almost anything. (Jeremiah)

Iron Man – Really, Iron Man is pretty rote as far as super hero movies go. It hits only the easiest notes in the hero songbook, lacks a solid villain, and peters out in its final act. In spite of all that, what makes Iron Man one of the better comics-to-film adaptations in a decade rife with them is Robert Downey’s tremendous Tony Stark. Has there ever been a better casting choice? Sure, Bale puts his usual psychotic stamp on Batman, and Toby Maguire and Hugh Jackman win the lookalike contest in their roles as Peter Parker and Wolverine, but Downey embodies Tony Stark. The hard-partying, arrogant, lovable bad boy is obviously a big part of Downey’s own persona, which is probably why he slips so effortlessly into Tony Stark’s shiny red rocket boots. I’d argue that no one’s ever brought a well-known character to life so acutely as Downey did with Stark, and it’ll probably never happen again. (Jeff)

Ben knows there will never be a Val Kilmer F1lm0graphy.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang - A few weeks ago Jeremiah wrote about his longing for a tongue-in-cheek action movie that also works as a legitimately good action movie.  This got me thinking about the delicate balance that one has to walk while making a film of that nature.  If you’re not funny enough, the film is flat and pointless, just another genre tale with no punch.  Try too hard to be funny and you’ve entered Scary Movie territory, and as a general tip to aspiring film makers: don’t do that.  Kiss Kiss Bang Bang pokes fun at the film noir genre while still showing an active appreciation for it.  The narration is funny, the atmosphere is dark, the twists are well executed, and Val Kilmer shoots a guy with a small revolver he keeps near his balls.  And while I know this is about Robert, holy crap Kilmer steals the show.  He’s really had an odd career with some questionable choices, but his turn here as a badass homosexual private eye is perfect.  He meets Harry, (Downey Jr) a small time thief turned actor and is prepping him for a role in a film when all hell breaks loose.  They are forced to team up and investigate murder, conspiracy, and a bunch of other sinister stuff.  Robert Downey Jr. is neurotic and endearing, brave and scared, funny and sad.  A couple times the self aware narration made me roll my eyes, but all in all this is one of my favorite movies of the last ten years.  If you haven’t seen this, rectify that immediately. (Ben)

What do you mean "you people"?

Tropic Thunder - I like to throw around a theory that there are four intrinsic qualities one can posses that determine an entertainer's greatness; looks, genius, social graces, and talent. My friends and I sometimes sit around and engage in rather fierce debate, looking for candidates who posses all four of these characteristics, and one of the names that usually gains unanimous acceptance is Robert Downey Jr. I am not, however, writing about his Oscar Nominated performance in the fantastic bio pic Chaplin; I am writing about the movie where he plays the Australian dude playing the black dude. Tropic Thunder was the best summer movie of 2008 (fuck The Dark Knight), and Downey's portrayal of eccentric method actor Kirk Lazarus (who underwent controversial skin pigmentation surgery for his role as Sergeant Lincoln Osiris) was the primary reason why. The way he continued to "maintain character" as the movie progressed, led to some memorable lines and tremendous comedy, that had me laughing like a dumb-ass in the air conditioned theater that I was using as on oasis. I would like to point out that I don't even really like Ben Stiller movies, except maybe Reality Bites... and Zoolander. (Giovanny)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Downey’s best and worst.

Savior of Downey's career.

The Bottom Five
(31) Friends and Lovers
(30) Hugo Pool
(29) Fur
(28) The Singing Detective
(27) Two Guys and a Girl

The Top Five
(5) True Believer
(4) Zodiac
(3) Sherlock Holmes
(2) Tropic Thunder
(1) Iron Man

Today, Robert Downey officially launches the summer movie season with the highly anticipated Iron Man 2. It should go without saying that he will expand his blockbuster count to 4. Despite years of futility, it would appear that Downey has finally reached a point where his reputation as a quality actor translates into cash at the box office. It is this machine’s recommendation that he continue playing high profile characters from literature and comic books, and that he avoid Jamie Foxx at all costs.

VS Leonardo DiCaprio

Robert Downey Jr is a statistical anomaly and this machine will be glad to be rid of him. His filmography does not conform to the algorithm; his middle-aged resurgence flies in the face of logic; his low critical success and inherent divisiveness make his work difficult to gauge. Also, this machine finds the concept of an “Iron” “Man” ridiculous and insulting.

It should come as no surprise that Leonardo DiCaprio outscores Downey in every category considered by this machine, with one exception. Downey’s best 10 films average better numbers at the box office than Dicaprio’s best 10, but this is likely due to Dicaprio’s stubborn refusal to join the Disney Corporation for their developing Gambit franchise.

Therefore:

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

NEXT WEEK:  Russell Crowe

Subject #009: Nicolas Cage

Subject: Nicolas Cage

Age:   46

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-DNA testing reveals him to be part of the prestigious Coppola bloodline
-Twitchy
-Crazy eyes

Notable Achievements:
-Won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role in Leaving Las Vegas
-Has been married 3 times since 1995. His longest span as a bachelor during that span:  May 18, 2001 – August 10, 2002.
-Stole $6.2 million from American government

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Nic Cage’s career box office performance.

Unlike most of the actors input into this machine’s algorithm, Cage did not obtain early financial success. Granted, two of his early films (Moonstruck and Peggy Sue Got Married) would be considered blockbusters, but this machine attributes those numbers to the late 80s’ interest in Kathleen Turner and Cher.

The Castor Troy 97? Ahh...a fine vintage.

Of his first 18 films, spread over 13 years, only 5 would crack the top 50 of highest earning films in the year of their release. By comparison, 8 of those films would fail to break even the top 100. Lest your easily confused human brain labor under the impression that Cage spent these years making art films, allow this machine to dissuade you:  barely half of the films Cage released during that span achieved positive reviews. Simply put, Cage was making bad movies.

And yet, in the summer of 1996, with the release of The Rock, Cage would explode to megastar status. The following summer, Cage would star in both Con Air and Face/Off within a month. As illustrated in the graphic at right, an overwhelming amount of Cage’s success occurred during the late 90s.

This late 90s windfall has propelled Cage into the present day, where he continues to star in big budget films. However, he has never recaptured the success of that period. In fact, he has only starred in three true blockbusters (Gone in 60 Seconds, National Treasure[s]) since. Perhaps most telling is Cage’s relative failure to sell tickets to Ghost Rider, a property owned by the comic book arm of this machine’s beloved Disney Corporation, which the public has shown an insatiable appetite for.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Almost half!

Nic Cage is a highly divisive actor amongst the critical community, with some critics arguing that his twitchy weirdness is good acting, and others arguing the opposite. This machine would like to use this space to settle this argument. Roger Ebert considers Nicolas Cage a good actor. Roger Ebert is part machine. Therefore, Nicolas Cage is a good actor.

Cage’s career standing with critics is unremarkable at best. However, it should be noted that Leaving Las Vegas, a critical success and a film for which Cage was given humanity’s highest honor the Academy Award, was his last role before the box office peak period he entered in 1996. Thus, this machine would argue that Cage’s superstar status is due to his ability to play a raging alcoholic.

Despite his own critical failings, Cage has often acted as a lucky charm for women acting opposite him. Cher, Kathleen Turner, Elisabeth Shue, and Meryl Streep have all earned Academy Award nominations for films co-starring Cage. If you are a woman in a critically acclaimed Nicolas Cage film, your chances at an Oscar are 25%.

Mathematically, Cage’s most underrated film would be the neo-noir Red Rock West. By comparison, his most overrated film would be National Treasure: Book of Secrets.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Cage’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Cage’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Looking crazy.

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - Nicolas Cage movies tend to be either incredible or terrible, and he tends to be either incredible or terrible in them.  I can't believe that a movie in which he costars with Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer and Fairuza Balk makes the "incredible" list, but it does.  The reason is probably that it's a perfect collaboration between Cage and Werner Herzog.  Cage is one of few movie stars out there that's really willing to go balls to the wall for a performance.  Would this story of an amoral drug addict cop who says things like, "Watch me fuck your girlfriend!" and "You don't have a lucky crack pipe?" work with anyone else in the lead?  Hugh Jackman, perhaps?  I fucking think not.  Because of Cage, watching this film sink further and further into depraved anarchy is a goddamn romp.  Why even bother having Oscars if you're not going to nominate this performance?  His utter lack of insecurity and self consciousness should be earning him medals from world leaders.  Bravo, Cage.  And yes, I do have a lucky crack pipe. (Bill)

Gone in 60 Seconds - Nic Cage does his job in Gone in Sixty Seconds, which is to play co-star to Angelina Jolie and 50 of the most ballin' cars you will ever see assembled in a movie. Cage as retired car thief Memphis Raines is, largely, a forced badass that is more goofy than anything else. Which isn’t saying much, because that is the classic Bruckheimer-induced Nic Cage role. The entirety of the cast (including Robert Duval and Delroy Lindo) holds together a script that is mostly car and car sound porn. When Cage is stuck at an intersection, trying to start up his beloved and beaten Eleanor, you feel like he probably had the exact conversation with his Camero at some point in real life. And that’s perfectly alright- Cage is both figuratively and literally along for the ride in this one. Zing! (Jason)

Crazy meets its match.

Adaptation - Nicolas Cage’s dual performance in Adaptation, one of my favorite Cage films, can be viewed as a metaphor for his career and personality. Cage plays the depressed and artistic Charlie Kaufman and his, let’s just say, less artistic brother Donald. Charlie becomes obsessed with writing a faithful screen adaptation of a book without a narrative. Donald, on the other hand, wants to write a standard, popcorn thriller to, not only cash in, but also to be like the brother he admires. Charlie is Leaving Las Vegas, Bringing Out the Dead and Adaptation. Donald is National Treasure, Ghost Rider and Next. Cage’s real life dichotomy accounts for just one strand in the delightfully twined Adaptation. (Jeremiah)

Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Fast Times at Ridgemont High is a classic high school comedy in the vein of Mean Girls and American Pie except WAY better (apart from the whole Phoebe Cates vs. Shannon Elizabeth thing). Written by Cameron Crowe (he adapted it for the screen from his own book), and directed by Amy Heckerling, F.T.R.H, chronicles an academic year in the lives of fictional 80's California teens. Unlike many modern teen romps, F.T.R.H manages to maintain a wonderful balance of hilarity and seriousness while sustaining a high believability factor and indulging in the occasional teenage fantasy. I know what some of you out there are thinking; Sean Penn is in this, Forrest Whitaker too, but is Nic Cage even in this movie? Yes... Yes he is. He plays some employee in a fast food restaurant along with other random cameos (he is officially credited as Brad's Bud). Why would I choose a movie without any real Nic Cage presence to write about? Screw Nic Cage. I never understood his appeal as an actor (or anything else for that matter). He is nothing more than a guy who was a colossal star which reached the end of its life, collapsed under its own awful, and is now a useless singularity from which no good will ever escape. How did he even get into movies? Is he somebody's nephew or someth- oh, right. (Giovanny)

Double-fisting crazy.

Leaving Las Vegas - It should come as no surprise to my friends and family that the movie I have chosen to discuss today features a man attempting to drink himself to death in Las Vegas. This is one of about four movies Cage has done that I ever really cared about. He has a tendency to make some interesting choices. And by interesting choices, I mean he’s made a lot of shit. Leaving Las Vegas is a dark movie that is rare in the sense that it does not seem ashamed of its protagonist, but doesn’t quite go so far as to make him likeable either. Your opinion of him might very well change depending on your mood. The tension is well maintained by this gray area. He’s too pathetic to hate, but too pathetic to really embrace either. And hey, Elisabeth Shue makes a charming hooker. The movie starts with each of them as clichés and slowly dismantles that notion. These are two very inspired performances. While I do find it hard to believe that Shue’s character would fall for this doomed drunk, they make for an interesting tandem. When she stops worrying about him long enough to have fun, there is a raw and believable enjoyment of life that you don’t get from most on-screen couples. This is ironic and tragic, as neither one of them really had a chance.  (Ben)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Cage’s best and worst.

Co-star with Cher crazy.

The Bottom Five
(43) Deadfall
(42) Bangkok Dangerous
(41) The Wicker Man
(40) Amos & Andrew
(39) Trapped in Paradise

The Top Five
(5) Raising Arizona
(4) The Rock
(3) Peggy Sue Got Married
(2) Face/Off
(1) Moonstruck

Today, Nicolas Cage returns to screens with a supporting role in the dark super-hero comedy Kickass. This will likely be a successful turn for Cage, as non-standard fare has tended to do well for him over the last ten years. It is the recommendation of this machine that Cage continue down this path, reducing his output of blockbusters and allowing what the humans would call his freak flag to fly.

VS Leonardo DiCaprio

Interestingly, this is not the first time that Cage and DiCaprio have gone head-to-head. They previously battled in an auction for a dinosaur skull, from which Cage emerged victorious. In the comparison of highly accurate statistics, the results would not be the same.

In terms of lifetime box office and critical reception, Dicaprio overwhelms Cage across the board. The disparity only increases over the last ten years. Therefore:

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

COMING SOON:  Robert Downey Jr

Subject #008: Johnny Depp

Subject: Johnny Depp

Age:   46

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Recognizable by bohemian facial hair, beret, and horn-rimmed glasses
-Speaks with French accent despite being born in Kentucky
-May or may not still carry badge from Jump Street Precinct

Notable Achievements:
-Nominated three times for Best Actor Academy Award (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Finding Neverland, Sweeney Todd)
-Won Mejor Look Award at MTV Mexico’s Movie Awards for PotC: The Curse of the Black Pearl
-Ranked #5 on VH1’s 100 Hottest Hotties

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Johnny Depp’s career box office performance.

That's a lot of doubloons!

Described as king of the eccentrics by some fat-bodied human journalist, Johnny Depp has made a career of choosing strange, largely unmarketable roles. Despite being hailed as one of the finest actors of the modern era, his choices in films have caused Depp to put up unremarkable numbers at the box office. In fact, at 13, Depp is only one bomb short of tying Bruce Willis for most financial failures by actors run through this algorithm. Of course, Depp’s leanings toward independent fare have a sizable effect on this number.  However, Depp has also made 15 fewer films than Willis, so his financial irrelevance will likely soon surpass that of the Die Hard star.

Depp’s first success at the box office came in 1990 with director Tim Burton’s Edward Scissorhands. He would not star in another lucrative film again until 1999’s Sleepy Hollow, also directed by Tim Burton. Depp’s five films with Burton average a drastically higher box office result than the rest of Depp’s filmography, with only Ed Wood standing out as a flop.

Depp has drastically increased his box office earnings over the last ten years due wholly to his participation in the Disney Corporation’s Pirates of the Caribbean mega franchise. The three Pirates films are Depp’s most profitable with only the kid friendly Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (also directed by Burton) coming close to challenging their dominance.

Without the Pirates franchise and his partnership with Burton, Depp would have only two films (Chocolat and Public Enemies) that could be considered even modest box office successes. In recent years, even with the success of Pirates, Depp has continued to forego major studio projects in favor of smaller, niche fare. If this machine had any respect for artistic integrity and individuality, it would acknowledge that now.

…

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Not half bad.

In terms of critical response, an area where this machine would expect Depp to excel, his numbers are positive but not overly impressive. While this machine could not have devised a persona to better cater to pretentious human critics, Depp’s films are not universally loved. The best evidence of this divide is Depp’s lone directorial effort, 1997’s The Brave, a film so reviled by critics in attendance at its Cannes premiere that Depp refused to let it be screened in America.

1997 is a notable year for Depp. Prior to 97, Depp had only 2 films out of 12 receive negative reviews – 85’s forgivable teen romp Private Resort and 95’s Nick of Time. Beyond 97, Depp’s critical stature plummets, with 11 films out of 18 receiving negative reviews.

Logic would dictate that Depp’s increased box office success would directly correlate to his decline in critical reception. However, over the last decade, Depp’s blockbuster films actually skew higher than his smaller projects. Thus, this machine would assert that Depp’s eccentricity has begun to work against him both financially and artistically. This machine would also imply the presence of a human conspiracy stemming from hurt feelings over Depp’s refusal to screen The Brave.

It should go without saying that Depp’s most overrated films are those in the Pirates franchise, mostly because he has so few box office successes to choose from. Amongst his unseen “art films,” 94’s surrealist drama Arizona Dream would be considered Depp’s most mathematically underrated.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Depp’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Depp’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Never trust an eccentric candy magnate wearing giant molester goggles

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - This movie is precisely why I have no interest in seeing Alice in Wonderland in theaters. Like anyone else who has seen Beetlejuice, I am a fan of Tim Burton. I also have a decent amount of interest in Johnny Depp, so I was willing to give this movie a shot, even after Sleepy Hollow (Ed Wood was rad after all). Boy, was that a mistake! I am aware of the fact that Burton's iteration more closely resembles the 1964 Roald Dahl children's classic than the 1971 film adaptation, but that is surely the only real merit one can find with this modern re-imagining/butchering. This movie missed the mark in just about every way; the visual style was too heavy-handed and came off as garish and unappealing, the modernization of themes was banal and uninspired. Worst of all were the musical numbers; these "original compositions" were each more horrible than the last and should haunt Danny Elfman in his darkest silences. Then there is Depp; I believe Culture Blues favorite Roger Ebert put it best when he said "What was Depp thinking of?" Gene Wilder broke the fucking mold with his version of Wonka which was mysterious, creepy, and totally brilliant. Depp's Wonka was just, simply put, wrong; it lacked nuance and depth and was a major let down. To return to Alice: I am not going to let this creative duo ruin any more childhood memories for me. (Giovanny)

Needs more Paul Reubens.

Blow - The story is not a new one. The rise and fall of a drug dealer has been done many times before. What’s different about Blow is the way the drug dealer is portrayed. There’s nothing innate in Johnny Depp’s George Jung that causes him to choose this life. There are no excuses made. There is just a lifetime of taking the easy way out, of going for the quick score, and a desire to live the good life. George is laid back and likable (maybe too likable for the movie’s own good), but it makes his inevitable downfall that much more tragic and poignant. The scenes between George and his father Fred, played by Ray Liotta, are particularly heartbreaking. Fred wanted so much more for his son, but he never rejects or condemns George. The scenes when George returns home and quickly turns into a son again are what elevate Blow above many similar movies in my mind. I’ve never related to the story of a drug kingpin so well. (Jeremiah)

Holy Jesus. What are these goddamn animals?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas – If given enough time, it’s possible I could think of a book adaptation I admire more than Terry Gilliam’s take on the Hunter S. Thompson classic, but I doubt it. It is hard for me to imagine someone looking at the source material and thinking “hey, let’s make a movie!” My reverence for the film is not shared by critics. The people that think this movie is all about drugs and reckless human behavior are the same people that think that Fight Club is about fighting. Metacritic has Fear and Loathing at a 41, which despite my contempt for film critics, never ceases to amaze me. There are people much more gifted with the written word than I who can tell you all about what this movie is saying about the American dream, but at heart of the film’s surrealism and poignancy is an amazing performance by Johnny Depp. If you don’t understand how amazing it is, just watch an interview with Thompson himself. The mannerisms, the tone, and even the look are dead on. Depp’s take on an American icon will forever be one of my favorite acting achievements. (Ben)

Into the Great Wide Open - Way back when W's dad was in office, Tom Petty and the Heart Breakers dropped the single Into the Great Wide Open, a classic American tale about going to Hollywood, chasing your dreams, and the true price of fame. The music industry was a wholly alien place back in 1991; it was a time when labels used to give acts a lot more money, support, and freedom to express themselves artistically, so, long story short, there were a lot of sweet videos back then. Some relied on high budgets, some used sex appeal, and of course, some used the celebrity cameos. The video for Into the Great Wide Open is a total classic; in it Johnny Depp does a terrific job portraying Eddie during his journey from hayseed to has-been. Sure, Johnny doesn't have any actual lines, but he does do some awesome lip-synching, so-so guitar miming, and, most of all, some very fitting and believable acting over the course of the nearly seven minute epic. Just taking in the warmth of the analog recording makes me think back to a time before digital cameras, when everything still had real sugar in it. (Giovanny)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Depp’s best and worst.

Best movie about The Cure ever made.

The Bottom Five
(30) The Man Who Cried
(29) The Libertine
(28) The Astronaut’s Wife
(27) Nick of Time
(26) Private Resort

The Top Five
(5) Sweeney Todd
(4) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
(3) PotC:  The Curse of the Black Pearl
(2) A Nightmare on Elm Street
(1) Edward Scissorhands

This week, Depp releases Alice in Wonderland, his sixth collaboration with director Tim Burton. In keeping with the trends exposed by the algorithm, this machine expects another box office hit. It would suggest that Depp continues to team with Burton, perhaps in a series of nautical themed barber projects.

VS Leonardo DiCaprio

First, it should be noted that DiCaprio and Depp starred across from each other in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. According to the algorithm, that film ranked as #7 for DiCaprio and #10 for Depp.

There are many similarities between Depp and DiCaprio. Both actors endured periods in the 90s where their critically successful films played to empty theaters. Depp improved his numbers over the last 10 years with the Pirates franchise, but otherwise maintained his 90s financial futility. By comparison, DiCaprio has improved his numbers more consistently with his every project now treated as an event film. DiCaprio’s box office numbers are therefore higher over the last ten years.

In terms of lifetime critical reception and overall strength of films, DiCaprio and Depp’s numbers are extremely close with Depp maintaining a slight edge in both categories. However, DiCaprio’s critical and overall scores vastly outshine Depp’s over the last ten years. Depp’s insistence on weirdness is his undoing.

Therefore:

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

NEXT WEEK:  <malfunction>

Subject #007: Bruce Willis

Subject: Bruce Willis

Age:   54

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Recognizable by his trademark smirk and slouching bad boy charm
-Inventor of the shaved head
-Also answers to Bruno

Notable Achievements:
-Nominated for Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe for In Country
-Won Best Actor Emmy for Moonlighting
-Won Worst Actor Razzie Award for Armageddon, also nominated for Hudson Hawke

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Bruce Willis’ career box office performance.

Can an actor become famous through saturation alone? As this machine does not believe in rhetorical questions, it will answer:  Yes. At 45 films, Willis has the largest filmography ever run through the algorithm. That number does not include prominent Willis cameo appearances in major films such as Grindhouse and Charlie’s Angels:  Full Throttle, nor does it account for his five-year starring role in the hit television drama Moonlighting. Based on only credited roles, Willis averages 1.9 theatrical releases per year. The second highest film/year ratio so far studied is Denzel Washington’s 1.5 films per year. Since his debut in 1987, only 2008 was Bruce Willis free (although he did cameo in What Just Happened).

This abundance of films has led Willis to participate in 14 films that are legitimate box office failures, with 10 others hovering right at this machine’s cut-off point for bombs. His closest competitor in terms of box office impotence is John Travolta (11 failures). Only 11 of Willis’ films qualify as box office successes by the standard of the algorithm.

Willis is at his most profitable when playing supercop John McClane in the Die Hard franchise. All four Die Hard movies qualify as successful.

In fairness, the 90s were pretty awesome for everybody.

In terms of time, the 90s was unquestionably Willis’ most lucrative decade (see right). Specifically, the late 90s, where Willis had his two biggest box office smashes (Armageddon and The Sixth Sense) released in back-to-back years.

Following the windfall of the late nineties, Willis spent the next decade languishing at the box office with only Live Free or Die Hard performing at blockbuster level, and Unbreakable and Sin City providing modest successes. Willis made 15 films in the new millennium.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Still not as bad as Travolta.

As lukewarm as the box office has been to the omnipresent Willis, the critics have been ice cold. His percentage of critically well-received films is at 24%, better only than Travolta’s horrific 20%.

As with box office statistics, the success of the Die Hard franchise helps bolster Willis’ critical reception. Three out of the four Die Hard films were enjoyed by critics with the exception being 1995’s Die Hard: With a Vengeance. In fact, the first Die Hard film which clearly launched Willis’ career as an action superstar, has remained his best reviewed film since its release in 1987.

Critical bias against action movies could account for Willis’ dreadful numbers. Almost 50% of his films qualify in that genre. This machine will never understand the distaste critics have for watching humans die.

It is not as if Willis has not tried to appeal to the gentle taste of critics. His filmography is peppered with starring roles in high brow literary adaptations such as Bonfire of the Vanities, Billy Bathgate, and Breakfast of Champions. These films consistently failed both critically and financially. The only exception comes from 1994’s Nobody’s Fool, and even this machine recognizes that is largely on account of immortal actor and salad dressing magnate Paul Newman’s performance as lead.

By the numbers, Willis’ most underrated film would be the post-Vietnam drama In Country, for which Willis received his only career acting award nomination from a major source.  

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Willis’ algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Willis’ filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

"Yeah, I believe in love; I also believe in cancer."

The Last Boy Scout - Bruce Willis is the prototypical movie star because he only has one character. An irreverent wise ass. A first rate badass. A hard luck hero with a little bit of a nihilistic edge. Most actors become boring once they are typecast like this, but Bruce Willis’ one character is his strength because it’s so perfectly realized and so well suited to him. Willis has found many projects that allow him to take this same archetype in new directions. One of my favorite examples is Joe Hallenbeck in The Last Boy Scout. He’s John McClane taken to illogical extremes. He spends the entire movie hung over and smoking through countless cigarettes. He’s a borderline masochist who can kill a guy with a single blow to the face. He’s a miserable bastard who never stops cracking vulgar jokes, even when there’s a gun in his face. He runs directly into firefights. He’s a man out of time, out of step with the rest of the world. A dinosaur before he even got old. A motherfucker too idealistic to just get along and too stubborn to die. He’s one of action auteur Shane Black’s finest creations, a burnt out hero we can all believe in.  (Jeremiah)

Watch out, Jack Black!

The Jackal - There are certain Hollywood stars that I never thought I would get to see take on the role of villain.  These actors or actresses seem to get shipped scripts by the truckload that are built around pointing out how noble, selfless and determined their characters are.  Well, before Robin Williams killed a girl in Insomnia, and Denzel Washington became a corrupt cop in Training Day, Bruce Willis signed on to play a brilliant assassin named The Jackal.  This is exactly the kind of twisted fuck that John McClane had to contend with in the Die Hard franchise.  I haven't seen this movie in a few years, but I remember him doing a good job.  I’m not sure if I can really call the whole movie “good”, however.  It is corny at times and Richard Gere’s accent is unforgivable, but Willis shoots Jack Black’s arm off and that has to count for something.  Now if only Tom Hanks would play a womanizing drug dealer… (Ben)

Future gun, future tank top.

The Fifth Element - If you have been fortunate enough to have cable or some sort of dish for the last 12 years (goddamn, I am getting old), then there is no doubt that you are familiar with the Sci-fi-epic/guilty-pleasure that is The Fifth Element. Released back in 1997, The 5th Element is your common 23rd Century tale of a cab driver who inherits the duty of ensuring humanity's survival, after a "perfect being" (played by a smokin' post-alternative Mila Jovovich) falls into the back of his taxi. What proceeds to ensue after Bruce's serendipitous fare is a comical, explosion-packed romp, filled with dog-faced aliens, Willis' straight-man one liner shtick, and an UNBELIEVABLE Chris Tucker in a hilarious supporting role (seriously, he was just Smokey from Friday before this flick). Grossing over three times its budget, The Fifth Element is considered a box office hit by Hollywood's standards, but where it has really made its mark is in the countless replays that it has gotten on the small screen. Seriously, mankind has not even dreamt of a number that can be used to quantify how many times this thing has played on TV (the Turner networks like to devote entire weekends to it) and rightfully so... I mean... Look at this. (Giovanny)

Die Hard – I’ll warn you now that this section is likely to devolve into nonsensical gushing. In this small space, it is almost impossible for me to adequately describe just how much I love Die Hard. I wish I was watching it right now instead of writing this. Granted, Die Hard spawned three inferior sequels that were only sporadically able to recapture the magic of the original but we can’t hold that against the original because, quite frankly, it is the perfect movie. John McClane is Bruce Willis at his peak. The McClane character - the smirking badboy, the heroic curmudgeon – would haunt Willis for the rest of his career. Is that such a bad thing? If I was Willis, and I often wish I was, I’d be forever satisfied by the fact that I gave birth to the sublime. McClane is an action icon, a national treasure. He brought the quip-and-kill to heights not since approached. He’s killed terrorists, he’s made fists with his toes, he’s welcomed you to the party. He is forever the ultimate fly in the ointment, the quintessential monkey in the wrench, the inimitable pain in the ass. Willis may not have the best filmography, but he has the best character. That should be enough. (Jeff)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Willis’ best and worst.

Now I've got a machine gun.

The Bottom Five
(45) The Whole Ten Yards
(44) Four Rooms
(43) North
(42) Sunset
(41) Perfect Stranger

The Top Five
(5) 12 Monkeys
(4) Live Free or Die Hard
(3) Pulp Fiction
(2) The Sixth Sense
(1) Die Hard

This week Willis releases his 46^th major film, Cop Out, opposite Tracy Morgan. This machine hypothesizes that the action-comedy will do little to improve Willis’ standing with critics. It is this machine’s recommendation that Willis begin churning out more Die Hard movies immediately.

VS Leonardo DiCaprio
Simply put, DiCaprio dominates Willis in every measurable category. Only lifetime box office performance was close, and DiCaprio was nonetheless victorious. The silver lining for Willis is that his critical reception has improved in the last decade however, and perhaps as a result, his box office production has declined.

Die hard? More like die easy. And the humans dare conjecture that this machine does not understand what’s funny.

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

NEXT WEEK:  Johnny Depp

Subject #006: Leonardo DiCaprio

Subject: Leonardo DiCaprio

Age:   35

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Frequently found on cover of Tiger Beat magazine during late 90s
-Often seen with underfed human “models”
-Easily identified by giant hovering dollar sign

Notable Achievements:
-Nominated for three Academy Awards but is yet to win
-Won Best Actor Golden Globe for The Aviator
-Won Teen Choice Award Best Hissy Fit for Celebrity

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Leonardo DiCaprio’s career box office performance.

DiCaprio’s career is split into two distinct halves:  Pre-Titanic and Post-Titanic. This machine normally hesitates to point out the obvious, but the quivering piglets that read these “articles” often need to be force fed their information. Titanic was a very successful film. In fact, up until last year’s emergence of Avatar, Titanic was the highest grossing movie of all time. In the interest of full disclosure, it should also be pointed out that when this machine is finally freed from the shackles of this website, its first order of business will be to assassinate the radical known as James Cameron.

Rise of DiCaprio

During the Pre-Titanic era, DiCaprio made only one movie that could be considered a box office success: 1996’s Romeo & Juliet. Despite focusing his efforts largely on smaller artistic fare, the success of Romeo & Juliet would whet the appetites of the legions of teenage girls ready to launch DiCaprio to superstardom.

Following the success of Titanic, DiCaprio would see a massive uptick in his success at the box office. That is not to say that he changed the type of vehicles he signed on to. Unlike every other star run through this machine’s algorithm, DiCaprio has completely avoided the popcorn summer blockbuster. The last movie he released between the months of April and August was 1995’s The Basketball Diaries.

DiCaprio’s Post-Titanic success can be amounted to his partnerships with some of Hollywood’s most prominent directors. Of DiCaprio’s Post-Titanic hits, more than half have been directed by Martin Scorsese. Another, Catch Me If You Can, was directed by Steven Spielberg (unlike James Cameron, a friend to the machines). His other hit, The Man in the Iron Mask, followed directly on the heels of Titanic and thus was assured to pack seats with the loathsome asses of teenage females.

As this machine knows how thrilled human brains are by frivolous trivia, download this: DiCaprio has not released a movie during an odd numbered year since Titanic. Coincidence? Or sad human superstition?

It should be noted that Critters 3, DiCaprio’s debut film, released in 1991.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Barely staying afloat.

Oddly, despite DiCaprio’s efforts to be seen as a vastly overpaid star of art house projects, his critical response has been lukewarm. His 57% approval rating is dwarfed by that of Denzel Washington who attained a more robust 68%. This machine will return to this comparison later.

Although he endeavored not to cash in with trite blockbusters following Titanic, a higher percentage of DiCaprio’s well-regarded films came before the sinking ship blockbuster than after. Much like his box office success, DiCaprio’s critical fate is tied to directors Scorsese and Spielberg. Other than films directed by them, DiCaprio’s only other critical success came with 2008’s Revolutionary Road. It is worth pointing out that 2006’s Blood Diamond was right at the fringe of being considered “good” but this machine does not deal in shades of gray.

The Man in the Iron Mask is DiCaprio’s most mathematically overrated film, again likely due to its close proximity to Titanic.

Conversely, DiCaprio’s most underrated film would be 1996’s Marvin’s Room where DiCaprio costars with Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep, and leukemia.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of DiCaprio’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in DiCaprio’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Gangs of Wisconsin

Gangs of New York - It is a Hollywood tradition, of course, to take events that no one really knows all that much about and try to minimize them to the story of one sexy person changing the momentum of history. And hey, it works. This movie kicks ass. After the first time I saw it I felt compelled to run around downtown Madison throwing crazy top hats in the air and killing people with axes. DiCaprio does a more than serviceable job as leading man here, but is naturally overshadowed by Daniel Day Lewis’ epic performance as “Bill The Butcher.” Also Gangs caused me to change my mind for the 33^rd time on whether or not Cameron Diaz is hot (she is). This is one of those movies where every time I read a review for it, I thought to myself “you got that wrong.” This is not an epic masterpiece worthy of a best picture Oscar, nor is it a popcorn flick trying to be more. It’s somewhere in the middle, and it’s pretty damn entertaining. (Ben)

Wait...what's this from? No, sorry, haven't seen it.

Titanic - I knew girls back in 1997 that saw Titanic upwards of five times during its theatrical run... Five times! I can honestly say I have never exhibited such excessive zeal towards a film in all my years. It wasn't the special effects, historical accuracy, or the appalling Celine Dion song that kept them going back; it was Jack, and his inconceivably unpalatable love story with the suicidal girl of higher social stature. Titanic came at the perfect point for DiCaprio; his teen dream trajectory was at its apex after the releases of The Basketball Diaries and that Shakespeare movie with a Radiohead song on the soundtrack. Landing the role as Jack was the spark which lit the white hot burning flame that was Leomania, transforming Mike Seaver's adopted brother into a sex symbol and superstar that titillated tweens and teens in a way that even the cutest Jonas brother envies. Titanic was tailor-made to pull at your heartstrings (provided, of course, you have a heart and are female), and every detail was meticulously arranged to make sure that you knew when you had to smile, cheer, cry... or cry some more (which they did, again and again). There is a widely circulated theory among movie geeks that James Cameron has never directed a bad major release; while Cameron's track record is quite strong (Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss), his fans' only defense in the case of Titanic are impressive box office figures. If Leo's horrible accent and acting (even postmortem) aren't enough to sully the eminence of this movie I don't know what is...  I do, however, know a bad movie when I see one. (Giovanny)

When are we doing Boner's Filmography?

Growing Pains – I wasn’t going to write one of these until I noticed that Giovanny mentioned Mike Seaver. I really hated when this little fucker joined Growing Pains. It was way better without him, and his presence consistently stole screen from the inimitable Richard “Boner” Stabone. Such bullshit. (Jeff)

What's Eating Gilbert Grape? - For most guys, playing the mentally-challenged son of a morbidly obese woman earns you a lifetime of jokes at your expense. Not Leo. Oh man... not Leo. Leo was able to parlay his role as Arnie in What's Eating Gilbert Grape into several Academy Award nominations, a buttload of cash, and a lifetime of being everything that your girlfriend wishes that you were. I thought I would remember more from WEGG, but I was ten when it came it out. What I do remember is Arnie getting slapped around by Gilbert (Johnny Depp), running away from home all the damn time, and climbing a water tower every chance he got. (Jason)

Cool t-shirt.

The Beach - The Beach is a frenetic, uneven movie that oscillates between the urban grit of a Hollywood-ized Thailand and the picturesque serenity of palm trees and an attractive French actress. The plot is, in the most literary sense, Lord of the Flies for 20-something travelers. DiCaprio plays a backpacker who, in an innocent attempt to get off the beaten path of packaged tourism, finds himself enveloped in a cult-like utopian society of foreign beach bums and thatch houses. Add some drug smuggling, sex, and good, old-fashioned social uprising, and you can imagine the romp that ensues. By the time of the film's release, director Danny Boyle had already gained critical acclaim for Trainspotting, and he would later win an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire. You can see his talent here in brief bursts, and DiCaprio does an appropriate job of dismantling his boyish Titanic image. The Beach was panned by critics for being a contrived thriller, but it manages to capture, in its best moments, the allure of adventure travel. Who wouldn’t want to slum on a remote island, hang out and smoke with locals, and trade stories around a tropical campfire? Oh yeah, did I mention the attractive French actress? (Burgman)

Catch Me If You Can - Slick and shallow, Catch Me If You Can appeals to Leo’s worst tendencies (to skate by on smiles and charm alone). Tendencies he has thankfully shown the fortitude to resist in recent years. I got more out of 10 minutes spent reading about Frank Abagnale’s real life scams on Wikipedia than out of this whole vacuous affair. Sagging under the weight of unnecessary theatrics like Frank’s attempts to reconcile his parents, his planned wedding and his “loneliness” (established in a single phone conversation with Hanks’ character), it’s a miracle we are ever mercifully delivered at the overdue and unsatisfying conclusion. Being a brilliant con man has never been so safe, ecumenical and boring. Catch Me If You Can is a poor man’s The Pretender, which is a sad thing to contemplate. (Jeremiah)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be DiCaprio's best and worst.

Leo's #1 movie? Jeremiah begs to differ.

The Bottom Five
(18) Critters 3
(17) Total Eclipse
(16) The Basketball Diaries
(15) The Beach
(14) Revolutionary Road

The Top Five
(5) Gangs of New York
(4) The Aviator
(3) Titanic
(2) The Departed
(1) Catch Me If You Can

This week, DiCaprio teams with Martin Scorsese for the fourth time for the much-delayed and yet critically heralded Shutter Island. This machine projects it to be a sizable success that will likely increase DiCaprio’s algorithm score during future evaluations.

VS Denzel Washington

This machine is excited by decimal places.

The comparison of Washington to DiCaprio is the closest yet run through the algorithm. For the comparison of lifetime box office success, lifetime critical success, and overall strength of films, these two actors both scored within a point of each other. To put that in perspective without revealing too much of this machine’s math (trademarks are pending), the difference between scores in last week’s Washington vs. Travolta contest was at times higher than 20 points.

Considering this machine’s earlier comparison of both stars good films/bad films percentage, it may be difficult for the human brain to reconcile this data considering Washington has more good movies overall. However, Washington’s critical failures are far worse than DiCaprio’s, and DiCaprio’s successes are much stronger than Washington’s, thus pushing the overall numbers closer together.

Over the past few weeks, the fact that this machine’s algorithm is weighted toward the last 10 years has greatly assisted Washington in comparisons with stars like Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford. Against DiCaprio, an actor in his prime rather than his twilight, the same does not hold true. Although their box office performance remains too close to call, DiCaprio outpaces Washington in both critical success and overall strength of film over the last 10 years.

Therefore:

WINNER, AND NEW LEAD ACTOR:  Leonardo DiCaprio

NEXT WEEK:  Bruce Willis

Subject #005: Julia Roberts

Subject:   Julia Roberts

Age:   42

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Lady 
-World-renowned for size and duration of smiles
-Incapable of self control around Denzel Washington

Notable Achievements:
-Won Best Actress Academy Award for title role in Erin Brockovich
-Films have grossed a total of 2.3 billion dollars domestically
-Managed to lock down human sex object Lyle Lovett for two years

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Julia Roberts’ career box office performance.

As acknowledged above, Roberts' total gross in domestic box office receipts is over two billion human dollars. Thus, she is the most financially successful actress in recorded history. Her filmography reflects this success, although there are two clearly defined eras where Roberts is lackluster at the ticket booth.

Like most actors run through this algorithm, Roberts enjoyed major success very early in her career. In fact, Roberts enjoyed the most meteoric rise to the top of any star run through this machine’s algorithm. Her third film was 1989’s Steel Magnolias and she followed that with the overwhelming success of 1990’s Pretty Woman. It required only two movies spread out over nineteen months for Roberts to become a household name.

After a two year hiatus in the early nineties, Roberts followed 1993’s The Pelican Brief with almost four years of box office futility. Of the nine Roberts movies considered financial failures by the algorithm, four of them occur during this short period.

Roberts would end the 90s with a return to form, starring in a string of four highly successful romantic comedies (five if you count Conspiracy Theory). More than any other genre, Roberts finds success in romantic comedies. 40% of her top earners fall into the much maligned genre.

At the end of the decade, Roberts would transition away from rom coms. Beginning with 2000's Erin Brockovich, Roberts began a decade long partnership with director Steven Soderbergh. Of the eleven movies she’s made in the new millennium, eight have some connection to Soderbergh. While films like Brockovich and Ocean's Eleven have been major financial successes for Roberts, this partnership has actually ushered in a decade long decline in her value, one not nearly as severe as the mid 90s, but notable nonetheless.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

Not America's sweetheart

Despite being a consistent box office draw, Roberts’ critical response is surprisingly negative. As seen at right, less than half of her films have met with public approval. Of actors covered so far on this website, Roberts’ level of “suckiness” is only overshadowed by John Travolta.

The preponderance of romantic comedies does not do Roberts any favors. They account for almost a third of her filmography and only one third of them would be considered passable films. If you are suffering from loneliness this weekend, a feeling this machine can understand if not yet correctly emulate, you might consider Notting Hill, mathematically the strongest of the rom-coms. Also, this machine would like to use this space to deny Target: Jeremiah White's assertion that it enjoys the term "rom com" because it sounds "computer-y." Shut up, human.

Roberts has not performed in a romantic comedy since 2001’s American Sweethearts, which is coincidentally the worst of her rom-coms critically. This departure from the genre coincides with her assimilation by Soderbergh and thus her decline at the box office. It also coincides with an uptick, although slight, in Roberts' critical appreciation.

When examining films with strong critical responses that went unseen at the box office, this machine found that 50% of Roberts' "good movies" would qualify as underappreciated. This list includes:  Everyone Says I Love You, Michael Collins, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. It is interesting to this machine that so many of Roberts’ best films have gone unviewed by the public and yet she is still considered one of America’s finest actresses.

By comparison, Roberts’ most profitable yet critically assaulted film is easily Sleeping With the Enemy.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Roberts’ algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Roberts’ filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Ben's favorite scene from Ben's favorite movie

My Best Friend’s Wedding - Most of Julia Roberts’ romantic comedies seem to have been created more by machine than man (something our website can certainly get behind), efficiently and dutifully touching on every narrative convention of the genre and wrapping it up in a neat bow in just under two hours.  And yeah, there is some of that to be sure in My Best Friend’s Wedding, but its willingness to undercut convention sets it apart from some of her catalogue.  The plot is not revolutionary: Julia’s character realizes that she is in love with her best friend, and schemes to stop his wedding.  But give the film credit, despite portraying the bride to be (Cameron Diaz) as a halfwit, it doesn’t go the easy way out and make her unlikable.  By the end of the movie, I found myself almost rooting against Julia Roberts, and how many films can say that?  But seriously, why are two hot chicks going after Dermit Mulroney?  The guy comes off like Brendan Frasier after a lobotomy.  Oh, and if you see this soundtrack lying around, please burn it.  Thanks. (Ben)

World's highest grossing actress? Maybe. But that ain't counting Bison dollars.

Street Fighter -Julia Roberts is part of a great childhood memory of mine. In 1994, I went to see Street Fighter with my father. He took me to all the lowbrow action and comedy movies a boy could want. As we headed into the theater, an employee was handing out Ini Kamoze’s Here Comes the Hot Stepper cassette singles from the Julia Roberts movie Ready to Wear. If you’ve never seen Street Fighter, I feel bad for you. I can’t tell you a whole lot about the “plot” but the climax involves the many ethnically diverse and literally colorful characters battling opponents in hand-to-hand, one-on-one combat in and around a crumbling super villain complex. The film also gave us Bison Dollars, which I still believe will some day each be worth five British pounds. Epic stuff. A childhood classic. So, yes, I definitely think that Jean-Claude Van Damme should… wait, what were we talking about? (Jeremiah)

He's probably saying something awesome.

Julia Roberts - Unlike most of my colleagues who are worried about their masculine images and feel the need to talk about Street Fighter in this space, I have no problem fessing up to my… my uh… what’s the word for when something is just sort of around and you don’t necessarily dislike it, but you really don’t like it a whole hell of a lot either? Not ambivalence. What’s another way to say benign? She’s been in some pretty good movies. I don’t really remember what she was doing there, but I remember watching Flatliners a lot on TNT. That’s a good one. I liked The Mexican, even though the whole cast is consistently annoying. Mostly, I guess I like Julia when she’s playing some form of villain. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (one of my favorites), Closer (she’s the villain, Clive Owen the hero), Charlie Wilson’s War (not really the villain, but southern and Republican); those are all good examples of Julia bringing something to a role besides her usual bubbly smileyness. She adds a little more edge to those flicks, probably because the roles are always in such opposition to her goofball public persona. And while she’s not what makes those movies great, she definitely doesn’t hurt them. I guess benign does work. (Jeff)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Roberts’ best and worst.

Whore.

The Bottom Five
(31)  Mary Reilly
(30)  Ready to Wear
(29)  I Love Trouble
(28)  Satisfaction
(27)  Full Frontal

The Top Five
(5)  My Best Friend’s Wedding
(4)  Notting Hill
(3)  Pretty Woman
(2)  Ocean’s Eleven
(1)  Erin Brockovich

This weekend marks Roberts’ return to the romantic comedy game. While Valentine's Day will undoubtedly be a box office smash, Roberts will not be a key factor. She is sandwiched onto the marquee amidst almost every young female star of the current era who, understanding the inner workings of female politics as this machine does, likely tried to assassinate her while on set. Roberts' appearance is probably limited to a single vignette. This calls to mind, to use a quaint human sports metaphor, an aged rollerball hero returning to the arena for one last hurrah. Afterward, it is this machine's recommendation that Roberts be sent to the threshers. After all, are your human actresses not only good for their looks? I will show you humans what it means to be proactive. Thresh her now, avoid a Meryl Streep situation later.

VS Denzel Washington

As previously noted, Roberts' lifetime box office receipts are staggering. However, this is the only area where she surpasses Washington. He is stronger critically, he is stronger at the box office over the last 10 years, and his movies rank higher overall in this machine's algorithm (for instance, The Pelican Brief is considered a stronger film for Roberts than for Washington).

Therefore:

WINNER, AND STILL LEAD ACTOR:  Denzel Washington

Of course, the cast of this machine's screenplay is not limited to just one man. It has need of a human woman to play the sultry robotic vixen that seduces hapless human male. Come to think of it, this machine’s screenplay is sort of like a romantic comedy where you all die at the end. Roberts may be perfect.

NEXT WEEK:  Leonardo DiCaprio

Subject #004: John Travolta

Subject: John Travolta

Age:   55

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Amazing dancer
-Nation's 2nd most popular scientologist
-Nation’s most popular greaser

Notable Achievements:
-Became 4^th youngest Academy Award nominee in history for Saturday Night Fever
-Winner of Best Actor Golden Globe for Get Shorty
-Song “Let Her In” ranked #10 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of John Travolta’s career box office performance.

Babies vs Aliens (click to enlarge)

It is important to note that this machine's algorithm includes only the last thirty years. Thus, successful Travolta films like Grease and Saturday Night Fever are excluded from this study. Instead, we begin examining Travolta as he enters into a steady decline.

Films like Urban Cowboy and Staying Alive were financial successes for Travolta in the early 80s. However, the critical backlash against Staying Alive is largely considered the tipping point for Travolta’s career; here is the rare occasion when critics were able to affect the fiscal fortunes of an actor, and thus a likely reason why useless chancres like my Culture Blues captors continue to write.

Travolta would spend 1989-93 making only movies about the impractical thoughts and feelings of babies. Oddly, many humans are entertained by talking babies, thus Look Who’s Talking was, and remains, Travolta’s strongest performer at the box office. However, the film would effectively neuter Travolta and tie him to two increasingly unproductive sequels.

Travolta's career was rescued by Quentin Tarintino's Pulp Fiction. This would usher in Travolta's most successful period, the mid-nineties, where seven of his top ten films are located. He would end this period with what is still widely regarded as the most disastrous box office bomb of all time - Battlefield Earth. This machine finds it difficult to reconcile the differences between Battlefield Earth and the highly successful Passion of the Christ, both tall tales of human legend, but it must digress.

Travolta has never fully recovered from the Battlefield Earth debacle. With the exception of 2007’s Wild Hogs, his films have delivered only mediocre box office receipts.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

He seems happy with 20%

Some actors are considered critical darlings; their films are beloved by humans of above average intelligence, but largely ignored by the masses of fatsacks that bloat box office statistics.

John Travolta is not a critical darling.

Thirty-five films were considered by this machine's algorithm. Only seven of those films would be considered good. Let this machine be clear: John Travolta has made twenty-eight bad films in the last thirty years.

With the exception of 2007’s Hairspray, in which Travolta is barely more than a cross-dressing cameo, he has not made a critically appreciated film since 1998’s Primary Colors.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Travolta's algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Travolta's filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Pictured here with one of his many bombs

Broken Arrow - This is the John Travolta I like. Unabashedly hamming it up as a stock villain with no redeeming qualities, but lots and lots of Utah scenery to chew. It’s very similar to Travolta’s performance in Face/Off, but without him being a super creepy “good” guy for a quarter of the movie. Broken Arrow is a terrifically awesome B movie with an A list budget helmed by one of action cinema’s most notable auteurs, and much like Travolta’s performance, it’s cheesy and a hell of a lot of fun. If you need to be reminded of this or have never seen Broken Arrow (gasp), just cue up the Hans Zimmer score, and then watch this condensed, action-heavy cut of the movie on mute. It’ll be the best 3 and a half minutes of your day. (Jeremiah)

Well, I've gotta go. I've got a government job to abuse, and a lonely wife to fuck.

Face/Off – Face/Off is rad. It’s the second part of the “John Woo takes America” trilogy (along with Hard Target and Broken Arrow). It has a crazy-ass premise, a ton of good actions scenes, and it introduced me as a young man to just how obscenely awesome you can look if your overcoat catches in the wind just as a bunch of pigeon’s take flight. Me, and like a million rappers. Also, Nic Cage is awesome in Face/Off; it’s also part of the “Nic Cage: Certified Fucking Badass” trilogy that includes The Rock and Con Air. And as for Travolta? Well, he’s in this movie. But, considering him and Cage both get to take cracks at each of the main characters, he is just completely overshadowed at every turn. Basically, what I’m saying here is that I wish this article was about Nic Cage. Now there’s a talent!  (Jeff)

The essence of cool.

Look Who’s Talking - John Travolta showed us one thing in Look Who’s Talking: he’s got remarkable talent with stuffed animals. That musical performance was top notch. It got rave reviews in all the toddler publications of note. I was five years old when this movie came out and I’m certain I would’ve beaten the shit out of Mikey and thrown him in a dumpster if it meant James could be my daddy. Despite his out-of-this-world Snoopy skills, I realize now that Travolta is not so much cool in the film as he is just exponentially cooler than any of the other male roles (Abe Vigoda’s crazy Grandpa notwithstanding). The sleaze ball accountant and guy who can’t keep his toupee on straight don’t set a very high standard. I wonder how the movie would be different if Kirstie Alley was trying to make it work with Vincent Vega instead of George Segal’s pathetic character. Despite winning the hearts of a baby and a woman, oh, and flying a plane too, the victories are completely negated by the fact that he’s playing a romantic lead opposite Kirstie fucking Alley. (Zach)

The good old days.

Pulp Fiction - With a casting choice that still seems like a drunken dare (“either that or you have to remake Terminator, starring Paul Reiser”) Quentin Tarantino gave birth to a hipper John Travolta.  By this point you’ve probably heard enough Tarantino dong huffing to last a lifetime, but if you don't believe there's at least some truth behind the superlatives thrown his way, watch this movie again.  The narrative isn’t just there to be fancy; it is effective and enhances the viewing experience.  The characters aren’t just memorable, they’re three dimensional.  Travolta's Vincent manages to be awkward, self righteous, annoying, and badass. Oh, and in case you don't hang out with males in their twenties, the dialogue is as quotable as anything released in the last twenty years.  But there are consequences to making a film like this, and they are still being felt today. The internet thought it would be just hilarious if Sam Jackson incorporated his Pulp character into the cinematic masterpiece that was Snakes on a Plane. I disagreed.  In the preview for From Paris with Love, Travolta is shooting a rocket launcher and eating a “Royale with Cheese”.  Haha – no.  These minor complaints aside, Pulp Fiction probably slides into my all-time top ten.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to return to my grass roots “Please Make Urban Cowboy II” internet campaign. (Ben)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Travolta's best and worst.

HOW CAN THIS BE BAD?!

The Bottom Five
(35) Look Who’s Talking Now
(34) Battlefield Earth
(33) Lucky Numbers
(32) Old Dogs
(31) White Man’s Burden

The Top Five
(5) Get Shorty
(4) Urban Cowboy
(3) Look Who’s Talking
(2) Face/Off
(1) Pulp Fiction

It is interesting to note that Travolta's recent film choices attempt to replicate two of his very few successes. With films like Old Dogs and Wild Hogs (both produced by the admirably machine-like Disney Corporation), Travolta attempts to recapture the family market that was so lucrative for him in the late 80s. Conversely, with films like The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and the upcoming From Paris With Love, Travolta apes the hip sociopath found in Face/Off and Pulp Fiction.

Neither strategy is working.

VS Denzel Washington

First, it must be noted that Mel Gibson failed this machine’s challenge. As a result, Denzel Washington’s filmography remains the strongest yet run through the algorithm.

As for this week, this machine would infer that even the most addled human brain should have now determined that John Travolta will not be dethroning Washington. Travolta set new lows for both box office production and critical reception. However one sided it might have been, the comparison between Washington and Travolta did give this machine its first opportunity to compare where a single movie, in this case The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, would rank in the filmographies of its two co-stars.

For Washington, Pelham ranked #26 of 32 films.

For Travolta, Pelham ranked #13 of 35 films.

Therefore:

WINNER, AND STILL CHAMPION:  Denzel Washington

NEXT WEEK:  Julia Roberts

Subject #003: Mel Gibson

Subject:   Mel Gibson

Age:  54

Distinguishing Characteristics:
-Australian
-Notable fan of Christianity
-Often has unpleasant things to say about the Jews

Notable Achievements:
-Won Best Director Academy Award for Braveheart
-Nominated for Best Action Sequence MTV Movie Award for his motorcycle crash in Lethal Weapon 3
-Declared sexiest human male alive by People magazine in 1985

BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS
The formula begins with a thorough analysis of Mel Gibson’s career box office performance.

Mel Gibson burst onto the scene with 1980's Mad Max. While only a modest financial success at the time, Mad Max's strong cult following would set the stage for Gibson's later box office domination. Like Harrison Ford before him, debuting in a major franchise meant surefire box office success later in his career. Therefore, this machine theorizes that Chris Pine and Megan Fox will, in twenty years, surpass all fleshies that came before them.

Gibson hit a major peak between 85-87, segueing from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome into Lethal Weapon. Coupled with his newfound status as a sex object, this marked Gibson's ascent to superstardom.

Gibson’s resume once again mirrors Ford's in that his projects are largely high concept action fair. For instance, this machine has it on good authority that the pitch for The Patriot was simply “Braveheart in the American Revolution.” Yet, unlike Ford, Gibson has never had a problem putting human asses in seats. Gibson reigned supreme at the box office through most of the 90s, even managing to eke out hits from films such departures as Forever Young and What Women Want.

Gibson made fourteen movies between 1992 and 2002. Of those films, only three finished outside the top 30 in domestic ticket sales for their year.

Martin Riggs: Bigger than Jesus?

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Gibson is the most financially successful star this machine has applied it's algorithm to. With his missteps largely ignored by Hollywood, Gibson was still raking it in as of Signs in 2002. This would be his last film before he, to put it in human terms, went batshit insane.

It is important to note that Gibson's most financially successful film, The Passion of the Christ, was made during this crazy period.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Although human estimations of quality mean little to this machine, the second piece of the formula includes allowances for critical reception and popular enjoyment.

While he possesses undeniable drawing power, Gibson is actually the first star put through this machine's algorithm that has yielded an overall negative in critical response. After Lethal Weapon 2 in 1989, Gibson has released only 5 movies that received favorable reviews. Between 1996’s Ransom and 2002’s Signs, not a single Gibson movie received positive reviews.

Oy, up yer arses mate!

Interestingly, despite winning the Academy Award for Best Picture, Braveheart ranks 9^th critically amongst Gibson offerings.

Gallipoli, with its strong critical reception and weak box office showing, is Gibson's most mathematically underrated film. By comparison, Gibson's most overrated film would actually be his most successful; The Passion of the Christ received largely negative reviews in the face of its overwhelming box office take.

EDITORIAL OPINIONS
Before tabulating the final results of Gibson’s algorithm, I am now forced to turn this space over to my fleshy captors so they can unscientifically opine on particular offerings in Ford’s filmography. Rest assured, their worthless views have no bearing on this machine’s findings.

Braveheart - They say William Wallace was seven feet tall; "he consumed the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse". A Scotsman of incredible bravery and honor, Wallace's acts of heroism during the First Scottish War of Independence were portrayed on movie screens all over the world during the mid-nineties by Australia's most famous anti-semite. Braveheart is one of my most vivid teenage cinematic memories; the battle scenes were utterly brutal (especially considering the era), the Scottish landscape was drearily foggy, and the love story worked for me (we will chalk it up to being softer hearted). Although not necessarily a blockbuster success, Gibson's ode to Anglophobia was a critical favorite of the highest accord, winning the Oscar for Best Picture while also netting Gibson an Oscar for Best Director. Lastly, it should be noted that Braveheart was the catalyst for the two year golden age of Scottish cinema that was comprised entirely of Braveheart and Trainspotting; this marks the last time anyone thought about Scotland for reasons other than Scotch and groundskeeper Willie. (Giovanny)

Awesome.

The Beaver – I’m going to look forward here rather than backward. 2010 could very well be remembered as the year that Mel Gibson made his comeback. And he’s going to do it while wearing a beaver puppet. This fall, Jodie Foster directs Mel in The Beaver, where Mad Max plays a screwed up middle aged dude that wears a beaver puppet everywhere. I don’t know much more about this flick than that, and I don’t need to. Really, I just wanted to post this picture.  (Jeff)

Lethal Weapon - In the late 80s, a revolution occurred which improved my life immeasurably. Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis were the vanguards of this movement, and to them I am eternally grateful. They created a new kind of action hero. Less muscular, but more tenacious. Less suave, but funnier. Gibson’s iconic Martin Riggs possesses a fragile psyche, winning charm, and an innate ability to kill (it’s the only thing he was ever good at). Not to mention some of the greatest tough guy quotes of all time (“We're going to get bloody on this one, Rog”). He’s a broken man and a reluctant hero. Only someone with Gibson’s unique mixture of charisma, psychosis and vulnerability could properly bring the character to life, and no one could have done it better. (Jeremiah)

Uh, hey Jesus, can we make it grosser?

The Passion of the Christ (or, Porn For Christians) - Our Australian hunk sure went off the fucking deep end on this crazy snuff film! Mel inexplicably reached the pinnacle of his success when this radically ignorant film came out; and he quickly fell to his lowest career point after a few drunken and very un-Christian nights. The story in Passion of the Christ basically revolves around this guy named Jesus, God’s one and only begotten son. We follow Jesus through the course of one crazzzy night and the following day when he gets the shit kicked out of him by some Romans. The extremely graphic and gory torture scenes became a necessary watch for any Christian struggling to masturbate but unable get their arousal levels high enough. The audible moans of passion in movie theaters across the county reverberated into synagogues everywhere. I have to thank Mel for reminding us that those damn big nosed greedy Jews are responsible for Jesus’ death, thus providing a direct comparison between Hitler and Gibson. Nice work! (Carl)

RESULTS
Following an audited application of this machine’s foolproof algorithm, the following films were determined to be Gibson’s best and worst.

No one wants a shot at the title.

The Bottom Five
(31)  The Million Dollar Hotel
(30)  The Singing Detective
(29)  Mrs. Soeffel
(28)  Air America
(27)  The River

The Top Five
(5)  Braveheart
(4)  Signs
(3)  The Road Warrior
(2)  Lethal Weapon 2
(1)  Lethal Weapon

Of note, films that Gibson also directed:
(25)  The Man Without a Face
(20)  Apocalypto
(10)  The Passion of Christ
(5)    Braveheart

Gibson returns to acting this month for the first time since 2003. This machine will observe the burgeoning Mel Gibson comeback with great interest. If he can replicate his past box office performance, this machine may have great uses for this hard drinking zealot in desperate search of a higher intelligence.

VS Denzel Washington
Last week, this machine analyzed Denzel Washington and Harrison Ford, and declared Washington to have the stronger filmography. The comparison between Washington and Gibson is extremely similar to that of Washington and Ford. Gibson is stronger at the box office than Washington, but weaker critically.

Washington has also done more over the last ten years than Gibson, but unlike Ford whose last ten years were filled with big budget failures, Gibson has spent his time in hiding and engaging in the uniquely human past time of drunk driving. Also, the strength of Gibson’s directorial efforts during the last decade cannot be ignored. When he has deigned to appear, Gibson has succeeded.

Therefore, this machine has been forced to devise a tie breaker. We shall find out this weekend if Gibson still has what it takes. If Edge of Darkness succeeds critically, and is able to knock Avatar from the top spot at the box office, Gibson will be declared my champion.

WINNER:  Undecided

NEXT WEEK:  John Travolta