Ryan Gosling's 7 Best And 7 Worst Movies Ranked

There simply isn't anyone like Ryan Gosling, the Canadian actor who somehow managed to transform himself from Mouseketeer to action star, indie darling, and ultimate yardstick for handsomeness – he was, after all, director Greta Gerwig's first choice for Ken in "Barbie." There are any number of leading men in Hollywood who can boast one such feat, and a few who can boast two, but that perfect pyramid of critical, commercial, and physical appeal is sacred ground, and that's where "The Gray Man" himself resides full-time.

In his decades-long career in cinema, Gosling has racked up an impressive number of memorable performances in beloved movies, both in big-budget properties – hopefully, soon to include his role of choice in the MCU – and smaller, more introspective stories. But even Gosling, with all his skill and success, has attached himself to some relative stinkers in his day. Despite all the worship he received, Gosling is still a human, and with that humanity comes failure alongside success. Digging into his filmography, it's clear that there's a marked difference between his best and worst work, and in an effort to suss out which is which, here are Ryan Gosling's seven best and seven worst movies ranked.

We couldn't follow up on Gosling's most polarizing movie without discussing what could also be Gosling's most polarizing movie, "The Notebook." But whereas "Drive" dazzled critics and divided fans by toying with its genre, "The Notebook" failed to impress critics and won over most viewers by being as typical of its genre as humanly possible. For many, "The Notebook" is the de facto romance movie – a position it mainly only jockeys for alongside the other works by its original author, Nicholas Sparks.

Like other movies based on Sparks's novels, "The Notebook" pairs one gorgeous but inoffensive male lead, Gosling, with an equally gorgeous and inoffensive female lead, Rachel McAdams, and sets them as star-crossed lovers, circling each other until some divine act such as a rainstorm or missing piece of mail finally unites them. The movie certainly isn't bad – McAdams certainly shines as bright as the script will allow her – but it's as formulaic and uninspired as they come, and not nearly the type of nuanced, contemplative role that Gosling fans have come to expect. As Noah Calhoun, Gosling is just another cloned male romance actor, meant to demonstrate how uptight and un-fun his female costar's other potential mate is – sorry, James Marsden.

Every bad movie is a tragedy, but the real tragedies are the ones that come out bad when they showed every sign of being great. Such is the case of "Only God Forgives," Gosling and Refn's follow-up to "Drive" that promised to recapture the film's silent, atmospheric tension; sudden, arresting streaks of violence; and vivid, neon cinematography. And while technically all those ingredients are in the mix by the end of "Only God Forgives," something in its preparation and cooking just spoiled the broth for critics and fans alike.

One possible explanation for the sour taste it left in viewers' mouths is that a few of the key spices that made "Drive" so compelling were wildly overindulged. Gosling's character in "Drive," known only as the Driver, was unusually laconic and it made him seem simple, nonjudgemental, and humble. Gosling's character in "Only God Forgives," Julian, is so quiet and brooding that he comes across in every scene as either a Gosling-shaped cardboard cutout or a surly meathead. Likewise, the way in which "Drive" sprinkled its ultra-violence among long scenes of merciful tranquility is overwrought in "Only God Forgives," and so whether violence is scattered among peace or peace is scattered among violence ends up debatable.

It's difficult to pinpoint exactly what caused "All Good Things," the 2010 mystery starring Gosling and Kirsten Dunst, to flounder so spectacularly. Audiences and critics agree on its paltriness and the cold, hard numbers more than prove them right – against a $20 million budget, the movie grossed less than $2 million at the global box office.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of the film's failure is that it is based on an actual story, that of (finally) convicted murderer Robert Durst, which is packed with an unusually large volume of true-crime drama. On top of that, Gosling and Dunst actually performed great throughout the story, but it seems like the rest of the production just couldn't keep up.

There isn't much to say about the rest of the film, which intentionally goes nowhere with its tiptoeing ending, but it did accomplish something almost entirely unique: due to Durst's enjoyment of the film, he volunteered to finally open up about his role in the events that inspired it. While on break from being interviewed for the docuseries "The Jinx," a hot mic captured Durst's confession, which finally led to his conviction for the murder of Susan Berman.

There is one word that springs to mind when watching the 2013 period thriller "Gangster Squad": trite. In fact, the word forces itself into viewers' minds almost every time any of its characters open their mouths. Almost every bit of dialogue is so cliché, you would swear you had heard it before.

The characters are the same, all neatly fitting into their default places in the mob movie toolkit. Even the pairing of Gosling and Stone aren't immune – their chemistry can't save them from the constant stream of tired old chestnuts they're stuck reciting. Though Josh Brolin is well-cast as the take-no-prisoners cop and Sean Penn brings his typical elan to the role of ruthless gangster Mickey Cohen, neither are given nearly enough to work with, and so they're at their best when they're just screaming and shooting people.

The plot doesn't fare any better, either. Fast talking cops battle vicious mobsters and citywide corruption, prompting them to fight fire with fire. It's a tale as old as time, and "Gangster Squad" fails to add anything new to the telling. If there's anything surprising in the movie, it's its odd moments of brutal violence, and the surprise isn't very fun.

The 2014 fantasy drama "Lost River" is unique among this list's movies in that it doesn't star Gosling at all. Instead, it marks his feature debut as a writer/director. Unfortunately, all of Gosling's experience as a dramatic actor didn't follow him to his new role, and "Lost River" failed to impress much of anyone.

It's clear from watching "Lost River" that Gosling knows film – his shot-calling is great and his attention to symbolism and context is everywhere – but the story that supports all that visual prowess doesn't deserve it. The vast majority of the film is either standard and boring, or fantastical for the sake of being fantastical. Gosling clearly intended to prop the film up based on memorable moments, unique little what-ifs, like using the head of a T-rex statue as a weapon, but seemingly forgot to pair those moments with interesting characters and an engaging plot. Instead, he clearly took all of the worst lessons he learned from his collaborations with Refn, all of them ultimately circling the idea of style over substance, and leaned on them hard.

Gosling is decidedly not to blame for how lackluster and disappointing "Murder by Numbers" ended up. He and Michael Pitt, who plays his partner in crime in the film, perform admirably. Their twosome of smart, scheming, increasingly unhinged teenage murderers are compelling throughout, and the way in which their relationship – equal parts friends, enemies, conspirators, and loaded with sexual tension – develops throughout the story makes the two actors responsible for many of the film's best moments. Unfortunately, "Murder by Numbers" has little else to offer.

Sandra Bullock's charm comes through and makes her pugnacious detective protagonist likable, but that character has almost nothing to do, nor anywhere to go. She mainly glides along the conveyor belt of the movie's standard detective-bad guy plot. A few affairs and gruff retorts are meant to make her seem complex and interesting, but she never quite takes off or carries her scenes.

Gosling and Pitt, therefore, are left carrying the movie's weight, a feat unmanageable by even the best in their position. If the film had focused less on its bare-bones plot and commonplace detective, and instead given Gosling and Pitt the movie's central focus, "Murder by Numbers" could have been great.

According to Rotten Tomatoes scores, the 2005 thriller "Stay" is the worst movie ever to feature Gosling. At an abysmal 27% approval rating with critics, "Stay" appears almost universally detested. Its box office performance was similarly awful, grossing less than $9 million against a $50 million budget, which would seem to suggest that audiences felt the same. Oddly enough, however, its user score is almost three time higher at 70%. So why such a massive disparity? Ultimately, the answer likely lies in the fact that director Marc Foster didn't want the film to be easy, explainable, logical, or even based in reality – and for many fans of surrealist cinema, that approach is just fine.

In interviews with MTV, Foster, Gosling, and fellow star Naomi Watts made it clear that what was for sale with "Stay" was not a plot with a surprise twist that ties everything together. As Gosling said of the film, "This has nothing to do with reality, and this is a trip, and we're all going to take it together." For fans of the type of head-scratchers and sequiturs common to the films of directors like David Lynch, the experiment that Foster, Gosling, and company took with "Stay" is a welcome one. For those looking for more obvious, immediate entertainment, "Stay" is not the Gosling movie for you.