To think the acting in Harry Potter is really bad?

[Evennumberonthevolume]

Referring primarily to the main three.

I haven't seen the films in so long but watched them when they've been on this week and it's so bad.

This is worse than an episode of CSI. I don't have a foggiest what's going on.

I heard Luna Lovegood actress is a Debby does Dallas type now.
It's such as shame, if true.

I didn't like Molly Weasley. Maybe not the acting but more how she was portrayed in the movie...

I always thought the boy from My Family would have been a good Harry Potter, although he might have been a bit old.

I don't really rate Ron, he just seems to look gormless and says Bloody Hell a lot.

Oh yes, Ginny was so flat and lifeless!

Maggie Smith recommended Daniel I believe. She was in David Copperfield with him.

I quite like Emma Watson, apart from the physical appearance (lack of frizzy hair & big teeth) she's pretty much like I imagined Hermione to be.

She did a Sofia Coppola film (the name escapes me) about the LA crime spree and she is Exactly that girl. I watched a few documentaries about it and she used to have a reality show I embarrassingly watched, and it made me feel EW is actually really good!

Luna Lovegood is a porn actress??

Radcliffe is unforgivable. Watson follows closely behind.

Rupert Grint doesn't bother me too much, I don't think he takes himself as seriously as the others.

In all seriousness though, you'd have though that spending your entire childhood starring as the leads in eight films would lead to some sort of competence in the acting department. No one is expecting Meryl Streep standards but those two don't even compare with Ian Beale!

Lambshank, interesting!

I am fromthe 70s and found the books and the films quite poor. The story is good, but the writing is clunky and the characters boring/wooden (book and film)

The actors suit this perfectly

I am terrible at being able to discern how good acting is! A lot of it is to do with script and directing, especially with HP where the director changed a few times.
I think Rupert Grint tends to do quite small independent films these days. He was in that Postman Pat film but mostly sticks to small films no-one gets to hear about.

Mary
My ds1 told me, he was mortified as grew up watching the films and quite fancied her at the time.
Obviously he didn't go into detail but told me he'd seen the pics but not any films.
He's left home is 25 and we don't usually have in depth convos about stuff like this, honestly.

I don't think Neville was at all good in the earlier films! And his "Oh God, I've killed Harry Potter!" moment in the Goblet of Fire was abysmal.

He also got better after that though.

They did try to frizz EW's hair up in the first film at least - quite obviously, really - but not so much after that.

Wasn't Haley Joel Osment (sixth sense boy) lined up to be Harry at one point?

Yes Thumb, the back combing was quite OTT in some scenes.

CloudPerson- I think his name was floated but JKR had insisted on an all British cast so he wouldn't have been a serious contender.

I would love to see these films remade (maybe as a tv series?) with decent child actors. I don't think their age when they started is any excuse for their woeful performances.

Haley Joel Osment was not really considered. Only if Steven Spielberg had been the director. But JK Rowling insisted on a British/Irish cast.
Apparently she wanted Terry Gilliam to direct the first film. Now that would've been interesting...

Oh goodness yes, the Harry Potter films are awful in the acting. Rupert Grint does eventually get better, but the other main two are ghastly. They are so bad, they make everyone around them seem bad, and these are well-weathered actors.

I was quite sad to see they had chosen Emma Watson to play Belle in the Beauty and the Beast remake. It was the one I was most looking forward to, but won't be bothering now. I'll stick to Once Upon A Time - really enjoy their interpretation of the story.

The HP are not that well written either. The story itself is very good, but not how they are written (especially book 5, which is abysmal in characterisation).

I think Emma Watson is modelling herself on the Keira knightly school,of acting. She has the same terrible way (now) of jutting her chin out when she says her lines and seems to think that's all you need to do to convey whatever emotion is called for in that scene.

Hermione does have frizzy hair in film one. After that it was all ghd's and a curling iron.

Adult actors were great. Child actors were mostly awful. Especially if you look at the american child actors of that time like Dakota Fanning and Abigail Breslin.

Emma watson doesn't have enough personality to be Belle.

Did anyone else thought Daniel Radcliffe was marvellous in Woman in Black because all he had to do was freeze in fright and look shocked in every scene? Perfectly wooden!

RichardBucket I'm amazed you found a positive spin on that shit show film! Though it does explain why his recent film where he plays a corpse has such acclaim....

HolidaySpiritsReinbeerAndWhine Yes, it is telling that Daniel Radcliffe's acting was the best thing about the film...

A corpse, perfect! See, casting the right actor for the right role is so very important!

What's the movie where DR goes undercover as a white supremacist? He's great in that movie.

I also liked him in horns.