oh daniel... - Kill Your Darlings (2024) Discussion

[–] ohbananas91 13 years ago

Geez give the guy a chance. You have not seen him in anything else other than Harry Potter have you? He has done well on the stage and in some of his other films outside of Potter. I think he will do well in this

"Chill broseph, I like Mountain Dew and big butts!” DanRad

reply

[–] rcsc3 13 years ago

ACTUALLY I have seen his other stuff and on stage and thought he was terrible, was embarrassing watching him.

reply

[–] ohbananas91 13 years ago

Well I guess not everyone will be happy, there are actors and actress who everyone seems to love and who have won major awards that I think suck. I just ignore them. I found him to be good in a lot of his work outside of Potter. He his not great by any means, but he is not the worst either.

"Chill broseph, I like Mountain Dew and big butts!” DanRad

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

He's a great actor. I admit, I can't see him as a young Ginsberg but I didn't think Franco looked like Ginsberg but he ended up doing a great job in Howl.

reply

[–] ellie246 11 years ago

From the limited stuff I've seen him in outside Potter, he certainly isn't great but he's making such interesting choices & seems to be improving, personally I'll keep an open mind.

I suppose the OP simply hates him, not everyone's going to like you I suppose.

But as long as he/she isn't investing in the other stuff Dan's going to ruin, he/she shouldn't worry too much.

reply

[–] mizzaphoenix 13 years ago

What exactly was embarrassing about his stage performances? And if you don't like him why did you pay so much money to go and watch him onstage?

Do you have any talents?
Well, I'm an Alcoholic.

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

He's a good actor and very few think otherwise.

reply

[–] JasonAnder 13 years ago

You watch his work even though you think he's terrible? What a lie.

The Hunger Games 3-23-12 http://myr.pn/ao27

reply

[–] rcsc3 13 years ago

I don't go to see HIS work, I got to see the directors work, the other performers work, its not all about him lol.

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

I'm much more interested in Jack Huston and Michael C. Hall. I'm a fan of Radcliff but I have to admit...I thought Jack Kerouac played a much larger role than Ginsberg...not to mention Carr...DeHaan(sp) should be the star.

reply

[–] JasonAnder 13 years ago

When he's the lead, it is.

The Hunger Games 3-23-12 http://myr.pn/ao27

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

If it is written from Ginsberg's point of view, of course Daniel would be the star but since I only read And The Hippos were Boiled In Their Tanks...it seemed like it would have been from Jack's point of view. Too bad no one could write it from Kammerer's point of view? Anyway, Jack helped Carr get rid of the body, which speaks to their friendship.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ellie246 11 years ago

That's what all the haters say, I watch to see the other performers *beep* !!!!

Sorry but if I hate a certain actor/director, I wouldn't pay a penny towards anything they're involved in.

This is total BS.

reply

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

He's not a very good actor at all ive seen his work not harry potter.He is horrible you got to remember with harry potter.The movie itself is what made him people cared more about the character.Then,the actor he is i just got on here and i noticed there is alread a 7.4 rating for this film.Even though it hasnt been released yet .Which leads me to believe that there is trolls on this board hyping this film up.
Daniel needs serious acting lessons how he's getting roles is beyond me .Ive seen his stage performance and excruciating too watch.The guy has absolutely no business being on a stage at all .He seriously needs to start getting legit training.He sucks and based off of that im 100% positive that his performance in this film will suck big time .

"If you want art, don't mess about with
movies. Buy a Picasso"

reply

[–] ohbananas91 12 years ago

That's your opinion. However you are in the minority when it comes to his stage work. Also with regards to this films rating on here it has not been rated by many people only a handful who have seen it at Sundance, there are trolls who have rated it down who have yet to see it. Besides that a 7.4 rating is not a bad rating.

He sucks and based off of that im 100% positive that his performance in this film will suck big time .

He got rave reviews for his performance in this film out of Sundance, however since you have made up your mind about his performance before actually seeing the film I guess there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

<3MICHELLE<3

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] radfreed 12 years ago

This movie has been screened at Sundance and BAM (one showing). So some people have obviously rated it after seeing it. We'll see a lot more troll ratings after its wide release is announced. I am sure there will be a lot of parents of young kids who think this is an inappropriate role for Radcliffe and will down grade it because of that.

reply

[–] ellie246 12 years ago

The word "suck" makes me believe you're American, what stage work have you seen then?

Another one who hates him, but still goes to watch him, (are these people as stupid as they sound)?

reply

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

I saw his work in equus and i saw his film work.They say that theater is where the true talent .I didn't see it with him the harry potter series already had a built in fan base.You can tell he never really developed his skills after that i give him an A for effort.It don't matter where i'm from i know good talent when i see it hes not good at all.

"If you want art, don't mess about with
movies. Buy a Picasso"

reply

[–] ohbananas91 12 years ago

You can tell he never really developed his skills after that i give him an A for effort.It don't matter where i'm from i know good talent when i see it hes not good at all.

Your not the know all when it comes to talent though. I can claim I know talent when I see it too, but it is still only my opinion. In my opinion it is clear that he has developed his skills since Equus, A young Doctors Notebook is a good example, I feel he was excellent there. I, as well as others, think he is talented. So you thinking he is not talented is your opinion and that's ok, but your opinion is just that, your opinion.

<3MICHELLE<3

reply

[–] MeadowLark8 11 years ago

@Kidjay83 ~ You are entitled to your opinion.
I am not disparaging your words.
But, I have read over the years that
Dan has taken acting lessons, many,
many acting lessons. He does seem serious and
committed to honing his craft.

reply

[–] kidjay83 11 years ago

That might all be well and good but so far from what i've seen even his recent work.You can tell he just started honing his skills greats work and are dedicated for years to what they do.It don't happen overnight he certainly doesn't have a natural talent.I'm sure he's committed to being a better actor but as of right now he sucks .
Instead of taking roles he should take a year off and take more classes or something .

My mother would show up on time and know all her lines but who wants to pay to see my mother?

reply

[–] titch85 11 years ago

What recent works have you seen? He was brilliant in The Cripple of Inishmaan over the summer. Also excellent in A Young Doctor's Notebook, particularly episodes 3 and 4.

If you think he sucks that much, move on and don't watch his projects.

Sarah

reply

[–] MeadowLark8 11 years ago

@kidjay83 ~ Thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion.
I can see your point of view in certain aspects.

reply

[–] Mell-anie 13 years ago

That's a bit mean OP :P

reply

[–] VicBooth 13 years ago

OP is right, there's been nothing at all to suggest Daniel Radcliffe has any range as an actor. He fell into a roll at 11 and has been benefiting from it unjustifiably ever since.

And Allen Ginsburg is literally the apex of actor being hired for their image rather than how well they fit into a role. He's as much Allen Ginsburg as he is, I don't know, Ernest Hemingway. Which is disappointing from a production that has picked it's other actors very intelligently.

From a visual perspective I would say David Cross, in I'm Not There, was the closest looking to Ginsberg though.

reply

[–] titch85 13 years ago

What about Equus? How to Succeed? Woman in Black? Hell, even Saturday Night Live.

Sarah xx

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

Give him a perm and he'll be fine. I don't think he should play him sweet. I think there was a lot of good in Ginsberg but I don't think he was sweet, he was obviously outspoken, playful and funloving, serious about his politics and much more...well that's just my opinion.

reply

[–] VicBooth 13 years ago

What about them?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Naneki1 13 years ago

He fell into a roll? Was it a sweet roll? A croissant roll? Perhaps a sushi roll... (just trying to lighten up the thread a bit folks)

"chicka-chick-ahhhhhhhhh"

reply

[–] northoftheriver 13 years ago

"OP is right, there's been nothing at all to suggest Daniel Radcliffe has any range as an actor. He fell into a roll at 11 and has been benefiting from it unjustifiably ever since."

Totally agree. I have seen everything he's done except How to Succeed and he's not very good by any stretch. These people are cashing in on Harry Potter while they can.

"Don't sit down because I've moved your chair"... Alex Turner

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

He was a child actor and he still wants to act. Don't you think he auditioned?

reply

[–] northoftheriver 13 years ago

His people knew some other people.

"Don't sit down because I've moved your chair"... Alex Turner

reply

[–] radfreed 13 years ago

He has said that he auditioned for this part while doing Equus on Broadway. Subsequently they weren't willing to wait for him while Deathly Hallows was split into two and filming was extended. Eisenberg was then cast along with Ben Whishaw but funding fell through for that version.

But with about 10 films and two stage performances under his belt, I suspect that he doesn't really need to audition any more - more likely there are readings and screen tests.

reply

[–] kulayful_a 13 years ago

The only reason you can give is that he's benefiting from a big franchise. I don't see you (or anyone hating) mentioning why he is a bad actor. And to say Olsen is the only reason, lol! Is it just because she's hot? What a lamer reason to watch. It's not like she's a good actress either.

reply

[–] rcsc3 13 years ago

Because she's hot? I'm gay. She's a brilliant upcoming actress, he was amazing in martha Mary may Marlene. Daniel Radcliffe lacks emotion and is wry wooden, he has limited range when he tries to show emotion. He's very bad at putting on accents an is just terrible.

reply

[–] MWallace77 13 years ago

Bullsh*t. There is nothing wrong with his range. He's a good actor.

reply

[–] ohbananas91 13 years ago

Bad at putting on accents? What, really? He has not done hardly any accents except an australian accent,(I don't know if it was good or bad because I have not seen DC boys.)and an American accent(Which was actually really good). Also I call bull on him being wooden and having limited range. I find him to be talented and can show expression well in my opinion. I find him to be subtle.

"I'm not clumsy, I'm accident-prone!” DanRad

reply

[–] kulayful_a 13 years ago

If she's that good, for you, yeah, whatever. That's your opinion. :) I don't know about accent, haven't seen any that he needed to do an accent aside from December boys, which I cannot comment for I haven't seen much of it. But for the lack of emotion, I mean, he had broadway/theater awards and they're quite prestigious. If I were you, don't rely too much on his acting skills on hp, because even he admitted that he wasn't satisfied with it. As for his other works, I think he's good, and could improve as an actor.

reply

[–] Aquarius66 12 years ago

Hmmm - he's getting rave reviews for Cripple of Inishmaan. Based on empirical evidence - I've come to the conclusion that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. So, I'll have to look elsewhere for knowledgeable critique about actors.

reply

[–] AnnChovie 13 years ago

Daniel Radcliffe as Allen Ginsburg? SERIOUSLY?????

reply

[–] ellie246 12 years ago

Well yeah, he's just played him idiot.

reply

[–] sizergh404 12 years ago

Have you seen it? - It would be nice if you gave us a review.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rcsc3 12 years ago

I haven't seen yet but I never listen to other reviews - if I see the film ill give my honest opinion on how he is cause maybe he has learnt to act but I still think he is awful in pretty much everything he's done.

Ill see if this changed my opinion on him ^^

reply

[–] ellie246 12 years ago

Ha, as if we don't know it already !!

I wouldn't waste yours & our time.

reply

[–] MWallace77 12 years ago

Every review I read, said he was great.

reply

[–] deblasiogwae 12 years ago

I think his movie and TV work has been very good. I saw him on Broadway in "How To Succeed" and I thought he was great.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beat 11 years ago

unfortunately i must agree with the OP. radcliffe seems like a nice guy, but he is quite a poor actor.

reply

[–] Reganne22 11 years ago

Some people may not like his performance in Harry Potter, but you never know what an actor can bring to the table. There could be improvements in his acting once he's able to stretch himself into different types of roles. His acting seems to be getting great reviews at TIFF at the moment, so I don't think it's all bad. He's got pretty good reviews for his performance in this movie as well.... of course some people may disagree but I think it's a step in the right direction that he's showing his versatility as an actor and showing his ability to play various characters in a different way by changing his voice and style.

reply

[–] Aquarius66 11 years ago

Yes, and not to mention - jeez, he was for the most part basically a kid when he was in Harry Potter. It wasn't until the last two movies that you could have considered him an adult. And actually, with the last two HP movies - I thought he did a pretty good job, the 5th one too (and he was what - 17?). I've been reading the reviews for all three movies he's been in at TIFF, and he's pretty much been universally praised - even if the reviewer wasn't as keen on the movie itself.

And as to rcsc3's statement:

I haven't seen yet but I never listen to other reviews - if I see the film ill give my honest opinion on how he is cause maybe he has learnt to act but I still think he is awful in pretty much everything he's done.

I don't believe he will give his honest opinion at all, because he obviously has already made up his mind, based on nothing, and will see these movies with a pre-determined opinion. It seems to me that this person has only seen the HP movies, and is basing everything on that.

reply

[–] rcsc3 11 years ago

Actually I will - I am open :-)

Watching trailer - he has surprised me, I don't actually see him as Harry potter (but I did in his other works), and tbh he's even got an accent that doesn't sound like Harry potter.

I will go see this open minded and see if he has developed - suppose some actors need time to get out of a demanding long term role? And maybe his last works have been to close to Harry potter? Also its the people who they work with affects the performance.

I Sympathise with Lars Von Trier.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]