Never liked his acting work. I've watched him in documentaries and interviews, and he's a nice affable chap, but there's something about his acting, a certain pomposity brought to his roles that suits some charactisations, especially in the Shakespearean roles (i.e. when he played the titular Richard II) but permeates into others where it's just not necessary. 

I could have sworn he played Aufidius in Ralph Fiennes' retelling of Coriolanus, which I really enjoyed, but a quick IMDB look up says Derek was nowhere near that film. Could be it's why I liked it...  :-/

 

I know what you mean, although I think pomposity is a bit unfair. There are times when you can see him being an acTORRRR. It's an old-fashioned style that probably comes from the company he's knocked about with over the years. Gielgud had it, and so do many present day actors like Simon Callow, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen (well, them anyway). It's theatre I suppose where it wouldn't stand out so much as on TV or film.

This is a good point. In theatre, to effectively play a lead, one must project the character's personality -- that is to say, exaggerate it for those not in the front row seats. Before a camera, this may come across as OTT. But the best film actors I can think of offhand are grounded in theatre, and return to it regularly. This is what you may call charisma.

We got around to the original, Richardson version a couple of weeks ago. Turns out we had watched previously, many moons ago on the old CRT tv set. For whatever reason I hadn't remembered the name so did not connect it to the more recent, USian remake -- apart from bad boy Kev's unplanned intervention, a fairly faithful rendition of the main themes and plot points. Mrs.D tells me some aspects of which are 'loosely based' on Hamlet and Macbeth.