Can't say I agree with her, but everyone has an opinion. There's also a poll on which star is most likely to win an oscar. Sarah, Alyson, and Nicholas are doing quite well. For some reason, James isn't on the poll.

Madhatter | August 13, 15:50 CET

Poor Nicholas Brendon...he doesn't even get his name spelled right in this article.

prufrock | August 13, 16:16 CET

I also believe everyone is entitled to their opinions, however i disagree with Sarah Bennett. I take it she did not see Alyson in When Harry Met Sally! She was completely different, very confident unlike Willow. Sarah Michelle Geller is an excellent actress which I am pleased she has noted. As for Nick Brendon, I think he is a great actor too, and just needs more oportunities to convey this.
One other thing about Alsyon not being able to shake the style of 'willow' Was it just me or did Season 6's episodes from the end of 'seeing red' not portray a completely different character, who is very un-willowish. Dark Willow was completely different. I suggest that Sarah Bennett bases her opinions on a wide range of evidence first.

Joss rules! | August 13, 16:26 CET

One of the things I've always admired about the Buffyverse is that every one of the actors got to play "different" roles over the course of the series. Which actually happened alot, vamp Willow and Xander, Evil Willow, Hyena Xander, Buffy and Faith Switch, Giles/Ripper, Spike/William, Angel/Angelus, etc. Also, all the characters developed/changed quite a bit over the years. I think it really let them show a wide range which SHOULD work to their benefit, but obviously not everyone was paying attention to the series as a whole.

Grace | August 13, 16:54 CET

I don't see any serious analysis of anyone's acting skills here - just shallow observations.

It's more a limitation of the reviewer that she can't see past an actor's televion persona, and to automatically dismiss James Marsters because of his age?

Ruadh | August 13, 17:29 CET

James is too old? But she has hope for NB? Does she think James' first acting ever was in Buffy or something? He's been acting for 20 years or so. I'm sure it's harder for theater folks to make the transition to tv/movies, but James definitely has the talent. He's successfully transitioned to tv, so now I'd say he has an even chance of making it in the movies. At least as well or better than NB.

And SMG is a great actress. I don't know if she'll ever be A-list, but she's got the best chance of all the Buffy veterans. Wonder why they left out DB? I mean, I don't think he's a great actor myself, but he is apparently making movies.

And also, sometimes talent and a movie career have very little to do with each other. I can think of several talentless(or at least one trick ponies, which isn't so much talent to me as gimmick) people who have made it relatively big in movies.

Rogue Slayer | August 13, 18:16 CET

I really would not put any weight on this "critical analysis", however, I'm of similar mind about Alyson Hannigan. I did see her in the stage version of "When Harry Met Sally..." and sadly, cringed the entire time. Not only due to the actors, but also over the production. That movie should have never been adapted to stage.

But back to AH, it's not that i don't find her talented, but i dont think the roles she has chosen has stretched her ability very much. She still has the quirky and rather heavy on the adorable speech pattern and energy that after a while i just find boring and twitchy. I don't feel that her "Dark Willow" stage or even her S7 "recovery" was any different, considering i felt she was very much phoning in her performance. AH seemed to not like where her character went and in my opinion, this very much showed. I'm curious if she *can* play another role outside of the wacky redhead.

In regards to Nicky Brendon, i really wish him the very best and hope he does go somewhere. SMG, i'm sincerely not worried about her. Judging by her career choices since the Scooby debacle, I'm actually quite excited to see what comes of all these very different movies she's attached to.

And as far as her opinion of James Marsters' career to already be over due to age, I'll just say, pfft. Of all the actors on the shows, I felt he was the most worthy of acknowledgement. I am always astounded by his incredibly animated face, his every emotion right there, a shift in feeling just done with a softening in his eyes. For someone who was mainly in theater, i find that subtle quality to be the most captivating

syd | August 13, 18:21 CET

i dont think george clooney has any charisma at all and isnt a very good actor think batman and robin my son is an actor [resting at the moment]and he really rates james marsters as an actor and james doesnt look 42

penni | August 13, 18:36 CET

James *does* look 42, up close and persoal but 42 in the double 00's is a lot younger than it was 10 years ago. James is very talented and can act his ass off, but to make it big in the movies? I seriously doubt. Firstly, he doesn't have the leading man exterior, to be the lead in a movie. My opinion of course. And he is 42 which is rather old to start to make a name as a movie star, of course there are exceptions. With Cruise, Denzel, Pitt... though late 30's and 40's, they became majorly famous at a younger age.

Onto Alyson, she's a great actress, but in every movie I've seen her in, even the horrid one in which her husband was also in, she still gives off that quirky cutesy Willow vibe.

Nick is a great comedic actor and has the best delivery of any of the Buffyverse star. He just needs to choose his roles better.

SMG in my opinion has the best chance of becoming HUGE. Versatile, talented, and strong willed.

David B. wasn't mentioned, but besides Alyson, Michelle and Sarah, he seems to be the only other verse actor that's actually getting major roles in movies. (whether they are good or not is another subject).

nychick | August 13, 19:04 CET

I think that George Clooney has tons of charisma, and Batman & Robin sucked the talent from every actor on screen, so it's hardly his fault. As for the Buffyverse folks, I think nearly all of them are very versatile and talented, though I'd have to say that Sarah and James impressed me the most over the years. I also thought that Alyson's portrayal of Dark Willow was astounding. And let's not forget the recent revelation of what a talent Amy Acker is. I'd like to see her get some film roles as well.

MindPieces | August 13, 19:15 CET

Not to take anything away from the rest of the cast (they're all great), I always thought that Alyson was the most talented. She must have 1000 different facial expressions that tell the mood exactly.

Joss rules! I could write a nice page on the character Willow (some day, I will). I found Willow to be the most complex and fascinating character on BtVS. I give my short take. The "Dark Willow" was anger and frustration within her. In "Welcome to the Hellmouth" we see poor Willow, a nerdy girl with hardly any friends. For the next three seasons, Willow seems to grow more confident in herself. Or is she? Willow has always seen herself as the same nerdy girl. And her deepest fear is that she'll lose her friends if they ever found out. So she builds a "facade" around herself. Watch Willow's dream in "Restless". Tara's warning that her friends will find out about the real her. Everyone saying she's already in costume for the play when she isn't. Then everyone laughing at nerdy Willow when her costume is stripped away. So this "act" Willow feels she has to do to keep her friends slowly starts to build into cold anger. The first time we see it is in "Choices" when Faith is threating her. She suddenly finds herself facing a Willow she didn't expect. Also, ever noticed that Willow doesn't handle criticism very well? The frustration comes from feeling she's not appreciated by her friends for what she is doing. OK, there are several scenes I wish to bring up. "Fear, Itself" the argument between Buffy and Willow. "Tough Love" Buffy/Willow/Glory. "Flooded" Willow is confronted by Giles. Each time, we see the "mask" Willow wears slip down a little. During season six, Willow starts to lose her friends despite her "strengths" and she tries to change again. Tara's death finally pushes her over the edge and she "drops" the act. "Villains" Buffy/Willow/Xander "I'm not coming back." (She will not put on the act again). "Grave" Willow/Giles "Willow doesn't live here anymore" (The person you know as Willow doesn't exist). And this is why it was only Xander who could reach through what she was feeling. He knew Willow her entire life. He loved nerdy Willow as well as scary Willow. He understood and would love her regardless of her actions.

That's just my take on it. Another fan can have an entirely different view and they would be just as correct. That's the secret to Joss' work. It touches the id within a person so they can see as they wish to see.

Madhatter | August 13, 19:15 CET

I've noticed that whenever Sarah Michelle Gellar is mentioned there is often reference made to the fact that she is unlikely to ever become an "A-list" actress. This might seem like a stupid question, but I'm just curious. Is there an actual definition of what is required for inclusion in this supposed "A-list"?

For what it's worth, I think she's a talented and intelligent actress. Her range and the subtlety she displays in her acting is greater than she sometimes gets credit for. I have no problem with the acting of anyone on Buffy. Some are better than others, obviously, and I don't particularly like the acting style of one or two of them, but that's just a personal opinion.

alien lanes | August 13, 20:07 CET

I just watched "The Pack" the other night and NB was great in that episode. He was so disturbing and dark and did such a fantastic job in it that I have no doubts that he is a great actor. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see NB spread his wings so much in the later years of Buffy to really show us his acting abilities. But up until that episode he was just the goofy side kick and "The Pack" showed another whole side of NBs talent.

I think AH is a great actress also but I think she does the best with the cute persona and I didn't quite buy the evil Willow stuff as much (especially compared to AAs transformation to Illyria). Liked her as Vamp Willow though. A lot of actresses just play the same part over and over. AH can play the perky cute girl but she can also portray wonderful emotions with her eyes and facial expresssions. Nothing wrong with trying to get jobs that showcase you at your best.

SMG has just blown me away scene after scene with her phenomenal portrayal of Buffy. She can definitely do it all and has no problem moving from one emotion to the other. I also think she is going to have a great career if she can find the right roles. Hollywood is a big gamble though and it's hard for anyone to succeed no matter how great an actor you are.

JM is also one of the best actors of the Buffyverse along AD. Both of these men had characters that changed so much since they were first introduced and whenever one of them was featured in an episode they shined and stole the limelight from everyone else. Spike was so exciting right from the beginning and just got better and better. And Wesley was just so goofy and annoying in the beginning that I was so upset that he was replacing Doyle! "What were they thinking!!" was how I felt. Knowing how far the character came, it was a wonderful decision and Wesley will always be one of my all time favorite characters. Both JM and AD have these wonderful expressive eyes that can say so much with out even seeming to change their facial expressions. That is pure talent! SMG, AH and AA are also very wonderful in that area as well.

And AA, wow, she just blew me away as Illyria and that's where my Illyria/Evil Willow comparison comes from. I felt Amy Acker did an excellent job of one second playing one character to the next second playing someone totally different. With Alyson, we had glimpses of seeing a bit of "evil" Willow popping out here and there when Willow was fighting with Tara and Giles and asserting herself so when Evil Willow truly emerged it just seemed like pissed off Willow and jealous Willow who wanted to put Buffy in her place and not so much Evil Willow to me. Illyria on the other hand was nothing like Fred that it was even hard to believe it was the same actress playing the role. It took me several episodes to truly come to grips that it was AA (even though I knew it was from the beginning but my mind just couldn't take it in). And especially when she was Illyria posing as Fred - totally brilliant acting!

It's hard to judge DB though. Angel is such a laid back character and so low key that we only got to see glimpses of DBs acting talents shine. He was wonderful as Angelus and he was wonderful when they allowed him to show his comedic abilities.

I was going to comment on the Firefly actors too but that would be another ten paragraphs so I'll just say that they are all as wonderfully talented too!

Firefly Flanatic | August 13, 20:20 CET

I dunno, I always thought SMG was A-list. Everyone knows who she is, and she has several successful movies under her belt. To lump her in with other Buffy actors that havent done so well in movies just doesnt seem fair to me.

numbereleven | August 13, 20:52 CET

I don’t quite understand what she is asking of them. “Can they act?” is a very different question from “do they have a movie star persona?”
I’ve seen certain actors play totally different characters on the page and still manage to give the same damn performance because they are allowed to get by on their movie star persona and really big smile.
I’ve only seen Alyson and Nick in a few other projects, and they weren’t the best showcases for what they could be capable of. So much depends on a good script and elements an actor has no control over that sometimes even the best actor can’t overcome them. Most- if not all- of the Buffyverse actors were asked to do the comedy, drama, heartbreak, butt-kicking, etc. Sing and dance even! I think that qualifies as versatile. I think Sarah is often underrated and could have a great career if she picks the right projects. Call me crazy, but I also think there's a slight bias against her because she's so petite. Buffy kicked a** before Jennifer Garner ever did on Alias (nothing against JG) but more people seem to pay attention to JG because she displays pretty frocks like a model on the red carpet. James has an extraordinary talent and charisma that I hope lead him to interesting things. He’s definitely an actor, not a persona.
I could go on about the sublime Alexis and the "Wow!" Amy, but I'll stick to the four mentioned in the article.
Oh, if only I were a casting director. They’d never be out of work!

bloodflowers | August 13, 20:55 CET

I agree that the Whedonverse is filled with ridiculously talented actors. Unfortunately, talent is often not directly translated into getting movie roles, or being successful in the business. I wish there were a better correlation between the two. In fact, it's more often the opposite.

I think it's telling that most of those cast in Buffy, Angel, and Firefly are chosen for their ability to create their characters, and make them become flesh and blood people. Alyson's ability to capture Willow was the key to her getting that part, despite the original casting, which may have met the character's original physical characteristics, but failed to convey the fullness of such a complex character.

For me, the essence of good acting is not noticing the acting at all. However, the subtlety that requires means that the actor's talent is often not recognized as such.

The perfect example of this is Amy Acker. It was easy to think that Fred was just Amy. That there wasn't any real "Acting" going on there. She just *was* Fred. But, then she was Illyria. And, Illyria as Fred. 3 totally different characters. That's when we can clearly see Amy's talent. Most people have commented that the transformation was such a surprise. The reason it was such a surprise? We believed Amy was Fred. Completely.

As was pointed out, many of the characters got to take their characters out of the norm, (Xander in the Pack, Angel/Angelus, Buffybot, etc.) etc. That's when you can start to see the range, and see how well the actors have created the characters, when we think of them as actual people, and also, when we cannot think of anyone else being that character.

Of course, as is mentioned in that last bit, good writing really helps.

k8cre8 | August 13, 21:03 CET

"Call me crazy, but I also think there's a slight bias against her because she's so petite."

I think I know what you mean, bloodflowers. I have sometimes suspected that SMG isn't taken quite as seriously as she might be because of her size. I am also inclined to think that she has been around for too long and is already too famous, which might affect her film career taking that next step. She can never be the "new big thing".

Personally, I like her immensely and I just hope she gets to make some good films. I'm looking forward to 'The Grudge' (I thought 'Ju-on: The Grudge' was tremendous), and 'Southland Tales' sounds interesting. In fact, I wish it for all of them. For me it doesn't matter if they become huge stars or not as long as they get to do interesting work. I'm sure they all have their own aspirations and good luck to them.

alien lanes | August 13, 22:59 CET

Agree with most of what everyone has written. I too would stress that being "A-list" shouldn't be an aspiration for any of these actors, unless that designation is the only way to do interesting and diverse roles. Ms. Bennett conflates acting ability and "A-list" success in what is really just a piece of fluff masquerading as criticism.

The reality is that most of our faves will probably not be headlining blockbuster movies in the years to come - but do we wish that of them? I don't at all. I just want to keep seeing their performances in intelligent and creative places. *Especially* in performances that surprise us. I'd love to see Aly in a straight dramatic role, Nicky in an edgy indie, Sarah in a role that calls more upon her emotional resources.

As to SMG, unfortunately, certain sections of the media (and her fanbase), aided and abetted no doubt by her publicists, insist on maintaining the "teen cutie" and Hollywood SMG/FPJ Golden Couple line, which I fear is partly responsible for her getting no respect. With a few choice parts, I personally see no reason why SMG cannot aspire to having a Jodie Foster-type career, in terms of critical recognition and variety of roles.

SoddingNancyTribe | August 14, 00:01 CET

Thought that article was a load of hooey! The way she writes you'd think actors have some sort of DNA that marks them as 'TV' or 'Movie' and that's it.

It's all down to perception and luck getting good parts with good directors. Think Clooney after ER or Bruce Willis, who was actually not put on Die Hard posters because he was "just a TV actor and would put people off"

While stage acting is way different from screen the difference between TV and movies is the way people work behind the scenes, not the way an actor behaves in front of the camera.

zz9 | August 14, 01:31 CET

Is it likely that JM will become a big, box-office-record- smashing movie star? No. Unfortunately, I don't think talent has anything really to do with that, and age might. Not fair, but true.

However, I do think he has many more years of rewarding work ahead of him. He has a range and depth that will keep him working on stage, on screen (big or small) and perhaps behind the camera, too.

DeniseDM | August 14, 01:57 CET

IMO there's a rather large difference between "can they act", "can they be in movies/sustain a movie career" and "will they ever become a huge movie star"? Since the article seems to start with the simple "can they act/can they sustain a movie career" premise, I find some of her assessments kind of nonsensical.

Yeah, JM is over 40, which does make it a bit difficult for him to shoot for movie superstardom now. But does that mean he can't "sustain a movie career", which is what the question
asked? There are more people in movies besides the stars. If he wanted, and if people thought he could, IMO he could easily be a character actor/ensemble actor in movies for quite some time, despite his age. Macbeth movie aside, he doesn't seem to be aiming in that direction, but it's a possibility. Or he could be a character/ensemble actor on TV. Or on stage. Or a lead, if someone decides he could be one. It's not movie star or nothing. And her answer to that question doesn't even touch on the original premise of the article - can he really act? She didn't really answer that with NB either.

Personally, I think he can, and very well, in fact. But I agree with everyone who says that talent isn't necessarily a guarantee of success in that business. And that you don't have to show versatility in your acting ability if you find a persona that really works for you. It's a crapshoot.

The article really seems to be about "can they make it big in the movies?", which is fine, but presents it as "can they act?" which kind of bugs me. I think all of the Buffyverse actors, for the most part, can act. That's no guarantee of a successful movie career, though. And the lack of same doesn't mean they can't act...

teenes | August 14, 02:31 CET

Well as some have pointed out already, this can in no way be dubbed a 'critical analysis'. If it is, every fan board across the net has loads of such 'analyses' every day. This was more like chatting at the hairdressers.

Also I'd like to note the difference between lack of acting ability or charisma and just not making it on the big screen because people are used to seeing you as Sam Malone because that's all they've seen you do for 10 years! That doesn't say anything about actors, it says something about the audience.

Also, the notion that every movie actor is automatically superior to tv actors in talent and/ot charisma is so ridiculous that I can't even believe these people are on the net and being listened to. Many actors in movies just got lucky. Or are just pretty. (Denise Richards anyone?) Where do you think Arnie would have been without lucking out with the Terminator? (In which he flexed his acting muscles SO much....yeahh...) It was also luck that it was at the right time, launching into the whole dumb macho action movies of the 80's. (Hey I enjoyed them too but I still see them for what they are. And btw Terminator itself wasn't even dumb, that's the sad part)

Aly, James, Sarah, Alexis, Nathan....all of those guys can act the socks off of any Brittany Murphy, Adam Sandler, Halle Berry, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck, etc.. And those people aren't even awful, (Well some are...) just in no way superior. And I could go on listing names, really....

EdDantes | August 14, 08:56 CET

Madhatter, very interesting comments, i have to say I agree. I do however, wish to add that Willow was ok with who she was in the end.
I would just like to say generally, that I think the acting skills of all the cast of Buffy have been excellent, and if anyone disagrees, then fair enough, u are entitled to think what u want, but i ask u, if they were that bad, why did u watch the show in the first place?
With regards to James Marsters age, he is only 42! Get over it! And he has millions of fans so he must be doing something right!

Joss rules! | August 14, 15:42 CET