I think you're being a bit harsh on some of the kids. I think Daniel Radcliffe is terrible, I'll give you that one. Rupert Grint is fine and I think Emma Watson is actually quite good now. I mean once she got her eyebrows under control and someone told her not to pronounce every syllable like it was her last she improved immeasurably. Some of the other kids are really good I think. Like the girl who plays Luna Lovegood, although I've always thought it would be quite easy to play someone who is batshit crazy. I even like Neville.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
The kids are really quite bad actors and I highly doubt any of them will go far once the Potter fame dies down for them. However they surrounded them with a whos who of superb British actors to save their shoddy acting.
Well they are both rather shite...Don't you also like Twilight?
You aren't going to like what I think of that.
At least Potter & Transformers are aimed at little boys.
I don't know who Luna Lovegood is. Is she an original kid? Or was she brought in for later films/books?....There's a noticeable difference between the kids that are brought in as later characters, or one off ones in certain story's, and the main cast kids who were all cast from the first one...
Possibly because they were older, and easier to find better actors, or possibly because they fired the casting director from the first one for being a massive gimp (I don't know if they did this, but they should've done)
I hate Twilight. Please do talk about them. Just leave Kristen Stewart out of it. Okay? Lets go, I will be waiting for your rant on the Twilight series. Just post it here.
Emma Watson will have no problem earning money. She will definitely get more movies and even if by any chance she has very little movies to do (I did not even feel right posting this line), then she has so many big modeling names behind her.
The Potter films aren't shite.....proven by the fact that not a single one of them really has overwhelmingly bad reviews like any Bay or Twilight film. I don't really like the films too much(especially the early ones), but to put them in the same bracket as Transformers is giving Bay too much credit.
There isn't really much need for a rant. There aren't enough facets to it. It's simply badly written fan fiction, by a sexually frustrated housewife with the flowery imagination of a 12 year old girl. It's very bad.
I'm not anti-Potter. I think it's very well written and pretty imaginative stuff. I'm glad kids have something like that to read. I just think the kids acting in it are shit and watching them trying to have a meaningful conversation is only marginally preferable to watching my radiator & dishwasher make noises at each other for 2 hours.
Oh come on Mockney! You can do better than that? How about Robert Pattinson? He is a worse actor than Daniel Radcliffe for feck sake!
Aye come to think of it, I believe she wasn't in the first four so that's a fair point.
Bob Pattinson > Daniel Radcliffe due to the fact that he at least has the excuse of always being stoned. What does Radcliffe have? He's worked with great actors, better source material, tried his hand at stage....should have some actings chops by now, but just doesn't.
I don't think he is. Well, it's not really that, it's that I don't think he's as big a problem for Twilight (or anything else he's going to be in) as Radcliffe is for Potter (or anything else he's going to be in) Twilight fails because it's just an atrocious thing, written badly, and ridiculously earnestly. Whereas Potter has a lot going on, and it's the actors that fail to make it interesting. Granted neither are remotely interesting, but I think Pattinson has marginally more going for him. Basically that he's handsome in truth. Like Emma Watson, incredibly dull to watch doing anything, but there are enough people obsessed by them to guarantee their future career. Both Pattinson & Radcliffe are ostensibly leading men. Radcliffe can't remotely carry this off.
Plus Twilight isn't the kind of thing that requires him to act. It's so badly written all he has to do is frown, look a little constipated and then pout. I haven't seen him in enough other stuff to really know how good he is..
Radcliffe is the anchor of this series (which is a much harder task than Pattinson's granted, but he does have immesurably better material to work with) and he has to do everything and go through loads of shite etc etc...And yet he's a completely characterless void of an actor. I really couldn't care less about him, or anything that happens to him, and that's a problem for the series.
I'm not sure he has any personality at all...It's quite bizarre. At least Pattinson has some rather interesting hair.
In fairness it can't be easy when you naturally look that gormless. Definitely needs more gorm.
Yeah but Radcliffe was casted when he was 10 or 11. I mean it is really hard to cast kids and they went with Dan. So you can't really blame the casting people for that.
Didn't Radcliffe win a competition? I'm pretty sure he wasn't an actor, but won a competition to play Harry Potter based on his look or something. Which would explain why he is not very good
Of course you can blame them it's their job. God knows how many kids they auditioned and they picked him. Sure you can't be certain what they'll be like as they get older but he was crap at the time too.
Edit: If Smashed is right then they got what they deserved.
Edit: If Smashed is right then they got what they deserved.
I guess he was riding on his credibility as playing David Copperfield.
I've never seen it. Was he actually decent in that then?
Well I could be wrong, it's just something I seem to remember because he is about the same age as me and I remember it all over the papers with thousands of school kids entering and stuff. It was 10 years ago though and I was only a kid so I could be remembering it wrong
I really doubt they'd leave something as important (relative to what a big deal it was at the time) as the Harry Potter casting to a looks competition...That'd be mental.
Yeah that is just bollocks. I heard they cast him last because they could not decide. Emma and Rupert were the first ones to be casted.
Columbus wanted Radcliffe, Columbus got Radcliffe. So yeah, basically blame Columbus. The other two just won the roles from auditions, so basically from having a good likeness to their characters in the vein hope they'd learn to act along the way.
So your saying Radcliffe did not go through any auditions?
Another record shattered in the US. All time best weekend opening domestically.
Box Office Report: Final
Box Office Report: Final
That train journey happened in 1990, the year we were both born AdZz. You telling me you'd come up with the idea of a fantasy novel when you were a baby?
Yes, yes I am. Anything can happen in a fantasy novel.
Whawdianwidnaskmsdkamskdmakmwt?
Yeah I am with you on that Adz. I told them they were blind.
I know what you mean about the ginger ones 'mugging to camera' face. It reminds me of someone that I'm fairly sure he stole it from....
It was either Blakey from 'On The Buses' or one of the Carry On cast.
He usually goes "Haaaaaaaaaaaarrrrry" and then pulls it.
Does he do that in this one?
It was either Blakey from 'On The Buses' or one of the Carry On cast.
He usually goes "Haaaaaaaaaaaarrrrry" and then pulls it.
Does he do that in this one?
Well as compelling as your argument is, I stand by my choice.
Are the movies any good, then? I couldn't get into Harry Potter the books, and to be honest I found what I've seen of the first few movies too be, frankly, a bit too childish. Lately I've been wondering if perhaps I should just watch the movies anyway.
I think you'll get to appreciate it. You have to see each movie as part of the whole adventure. Little by little you get to know each character better, you see them grow and see them age, you really get to know them. I think that's the main strength of any trilogy.
As a standalone the movies are ok, but you really have to watch the other movies in the series to fully enjoy and understand it. I agree, the first few movies are a bit childish, but the series is getting progressively darker, so if you like the more dark and mature theme you can give it a go.
I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I was curious of the biggest franchise in film history. Actually I just finished watching the movies yesterday.
I've enjoyed them. The change from light hearted fantasy to the much darker later films, as the main character age, is pretty good IMO. The effects and plot are very good and the acting is generally pretty damn good especially given that they had to keep the main young character throughout despite not really having an idea how good at acting they were when they chose them at 11. Even if this isn't really your cup of tea there is so much shit around that watching some great entertainment won't be a chore at worst and great fun at best.
I though he had auditions over 8 months before being finally selected even if Columbus originally asked him to audition after seeing him in David Copperfield (or some such English drama)?
He deserves to win more awards for his portrayal of Snape.
As someone who hasn't thought much of the Harry Potter movies, I thought that was excellent. Lots of really cool scenes curing the Battle of Hogwarts, and everything during and after Snape's memories was great. But perhaps most importantly, it didn't drag like the rest. My only gripe would be some of the dialogue being shockingly cheesy.
I'm going to watch it again tonight after work
And did anyone notice how much she looked like Harry's mother?
Neville was my favourite this time round. Did he always have that Yorkshire accent though? Neville that is, not the actor.
I watched this tonight. Got a bit lost near the end
Why did Harry drop the stone? I thought it was meant to be a powerful weapon or something along those lines? Got a bit confused during the end with the Harry dead bit. I thought it was pretty decent though, but in terms of story, I thought Part 1 was better.
I thought Part 1 was infinitely better.