MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Actors Who Are Better On TV Than In The ...

Actors Who Are Better On TV Than In The Cinema


There are actors like Christopher Ecclestone and Michael Sheen who are ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE as TV actors in stuff like Our Friends In The North, and Hearts and Minds, and in Sheen's case the BBC drama I'm currently watching called Best Interests, and then, when it comes to cinema, they're reduced to crap like Malekith in Thor: The Dark World, or as an annoying 'comedy' villain in Doolittle.

It's a shame, because I'm generally a cinephile rather than a fan of TV as a medium, but it's quite clear that a lot of the very best actors aren't always getting the material they deserve when it comes to cinema.

It was the same with a lot of theatre actors, like John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson, back in the day, who rarely got the opportunity to translate their immense talent on the stage to decent cinematic material.

reply

Michael sheen did great as a young prime minister Tony Blair in the film the Queen.

Probably could portray that character for full movie biopic or a tv series about Blair. The Queen was the first role I saw Michael Sheen.
Then it was the evil vampire in twilight.

I’m also mostly a film person rather than tv but yes tv takes more chances when it comes to casting.

An actor I think does much better on tv Is Hugh Laurie, it’s like film producers never knew what to do with him but he did great in House and The Night Manager.

reply

In cinema, Michael Sheen is often cast as real-life people, where he's basically asked to be a glorified impersonator (which is how I first came to know him), or quirky and eccentric characters.

But on TV, he's asked to play *real* people (as opposed to *real-life* people), and that's where one gets to finally see the depth of the man's acting ability and range. He gets to emote. He gets to be relatable. He gets to be the type of character one can identify with and believe, and in many ways, that's even more impressive to me than his, admittedly, brilliant chameleon-like ability to play real-life historic figures, like Tony Blair or Brian Clough.

I'm inclined to agree with you with respect to Hugh Laurie, although as a Brit who wasfirst introduced to Laurie via stuff like "The Young Ones" and other comedy shows, I regarded him as a comedian. He first came to fame through his comedy sketch show with Stephen Fry, and so, when he, and indeed Fry, transferred to more dramatic performances, starting arguably with 1992's Peter's Friends (the brilliant TV adaptation of "Jeeves and Wooster", which predated Peter's Friends, was still very much in the larger-than-life comedy realm), it was a genuine surprise to realise that Laurie, and Fry (who, alas, doesn't seem to do thata much acting these days, but was superb playing Oscar Wilde in the eponymous Wilde, in the late 90s, which, aptly enough, featured an early performance by Michael Sheen) had dramatic chops, alongside their comedy talent.

reply

Well it’s great someone like Hugh Laurie can do both comedy and drama. Actually Hugh had some really funny moments in House MD.
House was a show which was mostly a drama but had a lot of comedy as well. So Hugh was able to put on both his dramatic and comedic abilities in that show.

reply

I'd add Michael Sheen's Good Omens co-star, David Tenant to the list

reply

Very much agreed. In fact, we rarely see Tennant in movies at all, unlike Sheen, who tends to divide himself between TV, film, the occasional theatre, and even as a team captain on UK panel shows.

reply

Benedict Cumberbatch. Tom Wilkinson is slightly better on TV. Ian McKellen has better roles in the theatre. Jennifer Anniston. Evan Rachel Wood.

reply

Although I think Wilkinson deserves some more lead roles, he has been brilliant in a few films, including In The Bedroom (a rare lead role) and The Full Monty (in which his part was arguably the film's highlight, and evoked the most pathos). However, I think on balance, you're probably right, and he does tend to do his best work on TV. He first came to my attention as the duplicitous and pompous Pecksniff in a 90s adaptation of "Martin Chuzzlewit" which I'd highly recommend, for Wilkinson's memorable performance alone.

Benedict Cumberbatch I feel has been great in TV *and* film, and is one of the few actors who is able to seamlessly jump between various mediums without losing anything in the process.

reply

Yeah, Wilkinson shines, like many actors, in detailed and complex roles. His biggest disappointing appearance for me was in Batman Begins, which to me, still puzzles. The Full Monty is one of my favourite films. My favourite role of his, however, was in Rush Hour. We still call Wilkinson 'Jun Tao' affectionately, from watching that silly movie.

Cumberbatch got roles with more potential on the big screen, but I was let down by his take on Doctor Strange, on paper a role that demanded that he just turn on the charisma, which for me he didn't.

reply

I actually really like Wilkinson in Batman Begins. He's the only villain in that film that actually seems to be relishing his villainy. My only disappointment is that such a role (i.e. an Italian-American mafioso) didn't go to a more *authentic* actor. The Italian-American John Turturro, in the recent The Batman, evoked the part better than Wilkinson (as good as I think Wilkinson's performance is), and even looks a bit like the Falcone from the comics (something I'm not sure an Anglo-British actor could easily pull off). And, without wishing to be a contrarian, I thought Wilkinson was rather wasted in Rush Hour. He barely registered in that film for me, and if I hadn't seen the cast-list, I would probably have forgotten he was even in the movie.

I enjoy Cumberbatch in Doctor Strange. He's meant to be a bit of a dick, and he does a fantastic job of conveying that.

reply

carroll o'connor

reply