Do you think that Radcliffe would not be a famous actor, if he did not portray Harry Potter? I at least think so.
I doubt that he would have been a successful adult actor without Harry Potter. His mother was a casting agent and he had done some tv acting work before Harry Potter. But I believe that the acting projects would still have fizzled out by his mid teens without the role of Harry Potter.
I doubt that he would have been a successful adult actor without Harry Potter. His mother was a casting agent and he had done some tv acting work before Harry Potter. But I believe that the acting projects would still have fizzled out by his mid teens without the role of Harry Potter.
I think that you are right. Harry Potter popularise him, and he - is - for the most people - just famous because of this role.
It's fascinating how opinions on actors' performances can differ. While some viewers may have found Daniel Radcliffe's portrayal in ""Harry Potter"" to be a bit stiff, others appreciate the challenges of growing up in the spotlight and acknowledge his efforts to diversify his roles post-Potter. It's all part of the actor's journey! If you're curious about Radcliffe's recent work or simply seeking some cinematic inspiration, why not delve into what's in theatres now? Exploring the array of films in theaters now might lead you to discover a hidden gem starring Radcliffe that showcases his evolution as an actor. Who knows, you might find yourself pleasantly surprised by his performance in a new setting.
I vaguely recall him being in a just-ok Sandra Bullock action-comedy film recently-ish. He played a reasonably decent deranged villain in it so, seemed fine.
No, not really. I saw him in Stoppard's Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead at the Old Vic a few years ago. Radcliffe was Rosencrantz and in terms of acting ability was clearly third best.