Daniel Radcliffe

[Nixt]

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.

[Neversoft]

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.

[GommeInc]

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 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.

[Misawa]

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.

[Neversoft]

Britain has no good child actors.

Thomas Turgoose was fantastic in This is England.

[Inseriousity.]

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!

[RandomManJay]

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.

[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.

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.

[Inseriousity.]

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

[buttons]

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.