Daniel Radcliffe starred in the title role of the Harry Potter films from the age of twelve and throughout his teenage years. Naturally, following the phenomenal global success of the Harry Potter films, all eyes were on Radcliffe's next career move once they ended. And although reactions to his performance in The Woman In Black have been mixed, the New York Daily News' reporter Elizabeth Weitzman says today (February 2, 2012) that other child actors should take a leaf out of Radcliffe's book when they are finally cast asunder from the platform that makes them famous.
In fact, she praises all of the Harry Potter child actors (including Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) for not "unraveling before us" as can so often happen with children that are thrust into the limelight at an early age (see Lindsay Lohan, Drew Barrymore and Corey Haim). With audiences so familiar with Radcliffe as Harry Potter, it was always going to be a tough job to play anyone else convincingly. But, according to Weitzman, he does a good job, playing the role of Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer in Edwardian London, sent off to a dilapidated mansion in a remote village to handle a deceased lady's affairs.
On his performance, she says that Radcliffe's Kipps is "believable" and acknowledges the difficult demands of the role: "It's not easy to carry an entire film in which your job is primarily to react, but he handles the task with impressive confidence." His Harry Potter co-star Emma Watson has already appeared in the Oscar-nominated My Week With Marilyn, whilst Rupert Grint has the title role in Eddie the Eagle. So, it would seem that all of the young actors have managed to pull off 'life after Harry' with equal amounts of " remarkable poise."