New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Samuel Hoelker: I think it says something, as well, that this is the movie right out of the gate: it's not particularly youth-oriented (the setting's a century ago in northern England), it's not gory, and it doesn't rely on action sequences. This result shows that people were willing to take the plunge, and with this success, I think that (within reason) the cinema world is now Radcliffe's oyster.

Brett Beach: I would add a few other observations. CBS Films finally has a big win. Hammer Studios emerges from the distant past. And, although it is still too early in my estimation to declare Radcliffe on the road to a long career, I note some interesting parallels with aspects of Hugh Jackman's career: Yes, they are separated by about two decades, but both are always going to be known for one role (in the fantasy genre), and yet they have each proven themselves on the stage - in dramatic and singing/dancing parts - and seem interested in having a well-rounded and long-lasting career. They also seem to be grounded and be genuinely likable. Mebbe Joss Whedon could cast them in a musical action superhero film?

This was a good, more mature role for Radcliffe to lead out of HP and is a solid stepping stone more than anything.

Edwin Davies: I agree with Bruce that the performance of this film does a lot to illustrate Radcliffe's status as a draw outside of the franchise that made him (certainly in comparison to, say, Taylor Lautner). On paper, the idea of Daniel Radcliffe going straight from being a teenage wizard to a widower with a young child sounds ridiculous, but the response shows that Radcliffe's a good enough actor now to bring that sort of maturity to the role. Whether or not he has a good or great career going forward now depends on the choices he makes, but I think that he has the tools he needs to forge a lasting career as a leading man, and in ten or 15 years we could all be talking about how weird it is that Daniel Radcliffe used to be known just for Harry Potter.

Max Braden: I had no idea that Radcliffe was in this and expected it to make no more than Don't Be Afraid of the Dark did last fall. As it turns out, The Woman in Black has almost met Dark's full run gross in the first weekend. I'm going to have to assume that Radcliffe's audience was well aware that he was in it and he was the primary reason for the movie's decent opening weekend.

David Mumpower: Since we have reached a consensus about the movie being an impressive hit, the one point I would like to make about Daniel Radcliffe is that he reminds me of Sean Connery. Nobody remembers this now but Connery was only 32 when he made his first appearance as James Bond in Dr. No. He worked consistently for 40 years until he made the mistake of signing up for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Radcliffe is ten years younger and his first role is that much more iconic. There is no ceiling for what he can do in this industry if he has the inclination.

Continued:       1       2       3