First how this all works for anyone new to the process.
I take all the films an actor or actress has been in and break them down into three categories, 'Good' 'Bad' and 'Ok.' I do not count TV appearances or Made for TV movies. Afterwards a quick analysis will show whether or not they're a good actor by the numbers. Invariably there is a 2-3 +/- point bias on a person to person basis. Also, since 'ok' movies are not bad they count towards the positive column in the overall figuring. If by the numbers they fall in the 50 - 60% range, they're a bad actor; 61 - 70% good actor, and 71 - 80% great actor. Anything higher is unlikely, but bill be classified as "elite."
'Nuff talkin', let's see how Mr. Woods plays out:
Here was the thing I ran into: given the fact that I haven't seen a surprisingly large amount of movies he did early on, I had to confer with others to reach verdict on certain films. What films none of us had seen I went by the average vote on imdb. Not necessarily the greatest of measurements. Because of this I suppose he could rank higher. Though probably not, since most of the bad films fall in the second half of his career where I am able to judge for myself. He's done some very legendary work, as well as cult classic roles, but from what I've seen he's done a lot of garbage. As the numbers show on this, at 52% positive over 48% negative, James Woods, falls into the bad column.
His cartoon work by itself though it pure excellence.
Who would you like to see covered in the next edition? Let me know in the comments section and if I haven't already run the numbers, I'll be more than happy to.