To think the acting in Harry Potter is just awful?

[LookingForAlaskas]

Not watched the films in ages and the third one was on tonight.

It honestly felt like some parts were like a drama class in school. Very cringe.

I liked Michael Gambon better than Richard Harris as he seemed a more believable charecter while RH's Dumbledore seemed to be away with the fairies, I couldn't actually see him running a school. I actually think Dumbledore is a really difficult charecter to bring to life, so many opposing facets to his personality. Hermione was completely rewritten for the film into having zero flaws while Ron was made into the daft sidekick. I too hope there will be a TV reboot in the next ten years!

It'd be interesting to see how many Irish kids of that era are called Seamus Finnigan, etc etc. Not suggesting for a second Jk was racist, just that she could have done better.

I've no particular problem with Seamus's name, it's that while the only thing JKR tells us about him at the start is that he's sandy-haired I don't think we're even told he's Irish initially the films turn him into a fairly offensive stereotype. The novels don't depict him blowing up literally everything he points a wand at, or have him trying to turn something into rum (seriously? He's eleven!), but the scriptwriters/directors clearly view 'Irish' as code for 'boozer who's always blowing stuff up'.

I've always thought the problem with Michael Gambon was that he started off playing Richard Harris more than Dumbledore, and then got stuck with an accent and some mannerisms which probably didn't make a lot of sense to him. Plus Dumbledore just doesn't hang together as a character at all I think JKR tried to develop him from batty headmaster who gives mildly zany start of term speeches into someone powerful and flawed, but it just doesn't work. Plus you're up against the eternal problem of children's books how do you set things up so that 'good' adults don't just solve the problem for the child heroes? (And JKR had to figure out to why Dumbledore wasn't able to give advice and spy from his portraits after his death, too...)

Jason Isaacs was a total genius in Death of Stalin. As was Rupert Friend. And Simon Russell Beale. How can the divine SRB not have had a part in HP?

I empathised with @TheCanterburyWhales about the writing. I read the books to younger family members and I remember thinking, if I have to read the phrase, “...said Harry coldly” JUST ONE MORE TIME this book goes out of the window. Yes, an adverb for every verb.

I think the book @Fizzypoo means might be A Wizard of Earthsea. Although I always thought that JK Rowling ripped most of her ideas from the far superior Diana Wynne Jones. Now there was an imaginative writer who didn’t patronise children.

Hermione is the worst, with her overly expressive eyebrows. I find her really hard to watch. She is the epitome of precocious drama school kid. She's terrible in the last films too, those overly ernest looks.

Rupert grint was the best out the 3 main actors. And I believe has done the least acting post HP out of them. Though I wouldn’t really say the Hollywood careers have taken off for the other 2 either.

@overnightangel Harry wasn't working class! He was badly treated by his aunt's family, but they were aspirational lower middle (sending Dudley to Smeltings etc, they have a very Hyacinth Bouquet vibe imo), not working class.

The films are such easy watching that they’re perfect for this time of year until about February. The acting is shocking though.

I’m pretty sure most of the kids are related to some of the casting people / directors etc in some way rather than just being kids off the street?

Lol-= yeah there's some very poor acting considering it must have been the greatest gig going at the time. Best kid actors I've seen recently have been the cast from Outnumbered- Karen in particular is inspired and the boy playing the youngest Durrell.

I really fancied Lupin in the books and was so so disappointed of hoe he looked in the film. He needed to be played by Jude Law

The first one is bad but mainly due to lack of acting experience and nerves. My husband works on productions and sets and worked on the first two. Apparently, according to him, acting was deliberately played down by the main stars to a) accommodate the youngsters to make them shine in their own right and b) remember this was aimed at a very young audience to begin with. He says the adults- especially Rickman and Walters were brilliant with the kids and gave impromptu acting lessons in rest times and brought games to put them at ease.

Honestly, I think that this was a deliberate screenwriter/directorial decision to make BookHermione into a much weepier and more erratic and wet FilmHermione. I think it became blindingly obvious to the film people that Hermione is the real heroine of the series -- Harry would have been killed fifty times over if it hadn't been for her research, logical, unemotional cleverness, clear head, magical abilities and planning capacity.

Quite apart from anything else, had she not hidden a tent, changes of clothes, the invisibility cloak etc in the little beaded evening bag she carried to Bill and Fleur's wedding, none of the rest of the books' plots could have happened at all. (And while there's a lot about Harry grieving for parents he doesn't remember, Hermione does something incredibly heroic and selfless when she modifies her parents memories so they no longer think they have a daughter and sends them to live in Australia, knowing it's possible she'll never see them again. I mean, she's actually 'orphaning' herself from parents she loves and has grown up with.)

I think they needed to 'downgrade' FilmHermione to make Harry look more admirable.

We love the films here but agree the acting isn't the best and not at all keen on Gambon's Dumbledore.

Why is it that American child actors are generally so much better than British ones? Particularly at comedy, British kids in comedies are generally arse-clenchingly bad, IMO.

Richard Harris was THE perfect Dumbledore; his voice, his "sparkly" blue eyes, his smile! I was so disappointed with Michael Gambon.

Rupert Grint was definitely the best out of the three. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson were cute as children, but their acting didn't improve and seemed to have gotten worst in the last few films. Emma's brows became scary.

Tom Felton as Draco was good IMO. And so was Evanna Lynch as Luna.

Cho Chang and Bonnie Wright were terrible. Ginny's character was supposed to be this witty, lovely witch, but BW ruined the character so badly. Ginny in the film was booooring. I cringe every time her and HP shared one of their "intimate" looks.

But I still enjoyed the movies!

Oh and no one seemed to have mentioned Helena Bonham Carter (or maybe i missed it), but I think she portrayed Bellatrix pretty well!

I don’t think American kids are better per se! I am currently being made to sit through some pretty auwf child acting in these strange situation kids comedies they such as the thundermans and the acting is shocking. Outnumbered is a good example of gold British child acting. Soap are pretty bad in the uk, the young children are always mute but I think that’s because filming is a lot quicker so children aren’t given any time to be nurtured and shine.

I agree Ginny was awful, but I’m not sure BW can be totally to blame. She was given terrible material. Film Ginny had none of the sass or personality of book Ginny, the writers dumbed her character right down to that of just a dull, moony girl. Book Ginny had balls, was tough and had no time whatsoever for Ron or Harry’s shit and told it like it was. Even Fred and George were in awe of Ginny at times.

None of this was portrayed in the films at all, BW was given nothing to work with whatsoever. There was only so much she could do with the terrible lines and material. Again, a lot of it is the fault of the writers.

The painful over-annunciation and stage school acting bugs me and I can't enjoy them which makes me sad.

The Bellatrix of the novels always struck me as pretty much a brunette Unity Mitford -- posh girl fawning hysterically over Hitler. I have no idea where Helena Bonham Carter got her whole mad 'Here's Johnny!' thing and weird moments of Cockney, or why the hair person got the sort of Curly Girl Post-Punk look.

Movie Ginny was just a garbage character. Book Ginny was a badass!

Emma Watson’s eyebrows ruin every scene. She is a terrible, terrible actress.

PoA is my least favourite book and the film was even worse. It has such an awkward atmosphere and I really disliked Alfonso Cuaron’s direction.

Never mind the acting, the books are pretty awful too.

The whole thing was based on hype.

The child actors are all awful. DR is the worst. They were clearly all chosen because of what they looked like rather than ability to actually do the job!

This does make sense, but remember Ginny has a fairly significant role in Chamber of Secrets.
Significant in terms of the plot but hardly any dialogue involved.

Harry is a working class kid in the books but given posh kid makeover for American audiences and a “Briddish accent”.
Not exactly. Lily and Petunia were from a run down area but James' parents were not short of a few bob. Vernon was privately educated.

Many people have enjoyed the films, which gave employment to many people - film crew, technicians, designers as well as the actors and must have boosted the economy when they were made.

Some people go to films for enjoyment not just to critique the actors’ thespian skills you know!