What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

London critics praise ‘Potter’ star’s stage turn

Mentalist

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
LONDON - A play about a stablehand who mutilates horses was never going appeal to all, but “Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe’s assured performance in Peter Shaffer’s “Equus” pleased London critics.

Some theater writers expressed reservations about Peter Shaffer’s play, first staged in London’s West End in 1973, but almost all were impressed by the boy wizard’s breakout performance.

Charles Spencer, writing in The Daily Telegraph, said although “Equus” was full of “phoney baloney” and “pseudo-profundity,” Radcliffe had shown he was more than just a middling movie wizard. “(He) brilliantly succeeds in throwing off the mantle of Harry Potter, announcing himself as a thrilling stage actor of unexpected range and depth,” Spencer said.

The new production co-stars Richard Griffiths — a Tony Award winner last year for “The History Boys” who also played Harry’s dastardly Uncle Vernon in the “Potter” movies — as a psychiatrist who interviews the troubled youth.

The Times’ Benedict Nightingale said there should have been only two questions on the audience’s mind: “Is the boy wizard enough of a wizard to merit a place on stage beside Richard Griffiths? And how does Peter Shaffer’s play stand up 34 years after its premiere?”


He said that while Radcliffe had proven himself on the stage, “The second question is that, though gripping and theatrically skillful, ‘Equus’ is at the root dated, pretentious, and even a bit pernicious.”

The sentiment was echoed by Michael Billington, who wrote in The Guardian that the play romanticized pain. But he agreed “Equus” showed Radcliffe was “no flash in the magic pan.”

“Forget all the prurient press speculation about Harry Potter’s private parts,” he said, referring to a scene at the end where Radcliffe is nude. “The revelation in this revival is that Daniel Radcliffe really can act.”
Click to expand...


Video after the jump.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=21160b5d-fc5b-4c6b-b2b5-435d80666e9c&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382537/&fg



Looks like he pulled it off!


*groan*
 
I liked how they said it on breakfast tv this morning.

Daniel appears naked in the play, but its only a small part
 
WTF? OF COURSE HE CAN ACT! I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT HE WAS HARRY POTTER.

but why is he bothering to 'prove it' to the critics? With that kind of money, I'd just relax and go scuba diving and explore ancient ruins and such...
 
According to someone who claimed to have been there, he's slightly less than average and cut. Appppaaarently. Whatever, I'm happy for him that he's proven he can act. To be honest, I've always had my doubts. His performance in the Potter films always feels so forced and flat.
 
It could just look small because it's hidden beneath the MOUNDS UPON MOUNDS OF HAIR.

I'm surprised about the cut part. Not that I spend much time thinking about it...(I really don't)...(I mean, HONESTLY, I DON'T)...(STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!)...
 
I'm just shocked that these pics haven't hit the net yet. It's the INTERNETS what's going on?!
 
Well I'm sure we'll all know for sure soon enough. Not that I'm spending too much time thinking about it. His hairyness spoils his potential twinkyness.
 
Life's too fucking shot, everyone should post naked pics of themself before they die and we never get to see them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top