Daniel Radcliffe

This is mainly linked to Harry Potter, because it is Harry Potter he is most famous for. I was wondering what peoples opinions on Radcliffe's acting is?

Personally, I think his acting is substandard - certainly when you consider how huge the Harry Potter movies are. He has certainly improved since The Philosopher's (Sorcerer's, if you're American) Stone where I think his acting was downright painful to watch, but I still don't think he is able to fully portray the intensity of emotion required of someone taking on the role of Harry and when things get particularly impassioned. His acting often feels awkward and not realistic.

Of course, this is my opinion, but it has always intrigued me as to what other people thought about him.

I don't really have a problem with his acting. Obviously it could've be better, but I think he does a more than satisfactory job. I agree that he has certainly improved since the first films though. They really are a chore to watch. I think he is a very dedicated actor, especially for appearing naked on stage in Equus, and he always seems very cheerful and is an all around interesting fellow. I am glad he was cast as Harry.

His acting is okay, but I do agree - some of the deep, emotional scenes lack any sort of passion. When he cries he looks like he needs to go to the loo or he's been kicked in the crotch but still maintains the ability to talk, albeit a bit difficult. In the last film he wasn't that good when it came to chasing Snape demanding answers shouting "He was your friend". If anything, he seemed like he was having a temper tantrum when he should of been a bit more screechy - afterall, when something bad happens you really get angry, not have a child's tantrum when it all goes wrong :P He makes a good Harry, he looks alot like him or how you imagine him, but he isn't at all emotional. The actor has a wide pallette when it comes to a variety of different techniques, that's for sure. As Neversoft mentioned, he was happy to get nekkid infront of people. It's just a shame he still needs to develop his acting skills in a more important area - emotional scenes.

He's decent, but far from great. He's a LOT better than Grint and what's-her-face, though. All three were downright terrible in the first Harry Potter. Britain has no good child actors. The USA puts us to shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misawa

Britain has no good child actors.

---

Thomas Turgoose was fantastic in This is England.

I think he's improved. If he hadn't, I'd be a lot more worried. I'm one of those people who doesn't really notice bad acting if the story's good and Harry Potter's good. However, when he was crying at Dumbledore's body on the last movie, it felt really fake, so he's not very good at the crying! :D

I think there are a lot more actors with more potential and ability to fulfill the role of Harry Potter, but atm I don't think I could imagine any other actor playing the role :S. I think his acting ability is ok, and like you've said, hes gotten a lot better since the first film, but I think he still needs a lot of improvement.

I think the main thing is really the emotion, as has been highlighted by a few people in this thread. The Harry I know from the books is really passionate and Radcliffe seems to be void of that in his acting. I mean, in my opinion, in the current trailer when he rushes at Ron for the "You have no parents" comment, even that seems to lack any feeling of real enthusiasm. Just seems awkward.

On the whole though I do think his acting has improved, and a lot of what he does is just fine. I just think he's a little below the bar in terms of what you'd expect from a story of this calibre!

Oh and, just because he got naked in a story about a boy who loves his horse, doesn't mean he's a good actor. Dedicated, maybe. Crazy, definitely. But good? Not necessarily.

He's quite good at the comedy though. In said trailer, the 7 potters scene, the look on his face in one of them is hilarious :D

i never notice the acting cause i'm always so in to the story but i'm always unimpressed with rupert grint's acting (haven't watched any of them in anything other than harry potter). to be fair daniel was what 11 when he auditioned for the first film so he was pretty much just stuck with the role. i've never seen a problem with it.

I find his acting quite poor. It has certainly improved since the first film, but it is still quite terrible. Pretty disappointing, considering how passionate Harry is in the actual books, but Daniel simply can't pull it off.

I think he's quite a good actor, he certainly has improved from the first movie that he did.

I think hes an ACE actor :) LOVE HIM xD

I love his acting you cannot fault this guy. I love him in Harry potter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannnny,

I love his acting you cannot fault this guy. I love him in Harry potter!

---

Clearly we can.

I don't like his crying scenes they look like he's got serious bowel pain. But he has got a lot better since the first HP! It's now enjoyable to watch most of his acting :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixt

Oh and, just because he got naked in a story about a boy who loves his horse, doesn't mean he's a good actor. Dedicated, maybe. Crazy, definitely. But good? Not necessarily.

---

Yes, I said he was very dedicated for doing so. Myself nor Gomme never said it made him a good actor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neversoft

Yes, I said he was very dedicated for doing so. Myself nor Gomme never said it made him a good actor.

---

I was merely making a point, I didn't say specifically anyone had said he was good because of that, I was just stating my opinion on that particular matter. I haven't seen him in Equus so can't comment on his acting in it, but I know some people automatically assume amazing acting because of the dedication he has in getting his kit off.

He's not bad. There is some talent, but he does have some illness, forget what its called where basically he clumsy, he often drops thing, finds it hard to walk without bumping into things.

I think that's generally known as clumsiness...

And has nowt to do with his performing ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misawa

I think that's generally known as clumsiness...

And has nowt to do with his performing ability.

---

no its called dyspraxia actually. and it means messages from the brain have problems getting to the body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misawa

I think that's generally known as clumsiness...

And has nowt to do with his performing ability.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haaaaarry

no its called dyspraxia actually. and it means messages from the brain have problems getting to the body.

---

thats it there.

Oh, dyspraxia. I have a friend of who suffers from it, didn't know Radcliffe did. He obviously has it extremely mildly as I know exactly what it's like. "Clumsiness" was a bad description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixt

I think the main thing is really the emotion, as has been highlighted by a few people in this thread. The Harry I know from the books is really passionate and Radcliffe seems to be void of that in his acting. I mean, in my opinion, in the current trailer when he rushes at Ron for the "You have no parents" comment, even that seems to lack any feeling of real enthusiasm. Just seems awkward.

---

I agree that in the previous films he really didn't show much emotion. One scene that comes to mind is in the third film when he's "crying" and says "He was their friend!" (when talking about Sirius). I thought that scene was awful.
But I thought the part in the trailer where Harry charges towards Ron actually looked really good. I think Dan has gotten better over the years, but I also think that Rupert and Emma are better. I can't wait to see Dan in the graveyard scene in the upcoming film though, I really hope he pulls it off because that was one of my favourite parts of the book and I won't be happy if they ruin it in the movie.