Doesn't get enough credit for his portrayal of Potter

I completely agree. They are still too many who recite the litany that the other actors were good while Radcliffe would miss Harry. As Emma Watson said last London premiere: "You were and are the perfect Harry." The main character, especially when an entire universe revolves around him, bears all the weight of responsibility and tone and aura: if you find the right one, it's done, but if you find one wrong, everything collapses. I have seen too many beautiful movies ruined by unpresentable protagonists: good-looking puppets, no brains, charm, intelligence, personality, actor sensitivity, talent. They really had an amazing fortune (or flair): Radcliffe even managed to straighten certain Harry's behavioral excesses or to compensate for some of its intellectual shortcomings which in the film would have undermined the role. And, in a world that's often on the villain side (role notoriously much easier to play), just think how many side with Malfoy or Voldemort even, just to contradict or feel more cool, embody a hero like Harry was a real challenge, won triumphantly. It's not enough to have a wand and round glasses to be Harry Potter. Many still don't understand it. Thanks for reminding us.

Yeah, he really brought that air of "nobleness" the character is so infused with in the books, but didn't make it irritating. Like how every time someone died in the books, it would say "Harry couldn't imagine a world without Sirius." "Harry thought the world must be ending without Dobby in it." "Harry couldn't tell up from down without whats-his-name Weasley twin." And that could have easily not translated well, but you could tell the weight of the guilt and sincerity in his portrayal. He carried that innate goodness the character was supposed to embody, but had a relatable gentleness and humility to him. It's kind of hard to describe, like how Harry had to be likable enough that you know who he is when given to selfishness or arrogance, but not a doormat. Daniel really just "got" that aspect and had a good through-line in the 8 movies.

I agree again. Nobleness, goodness, relatable gentleness and humility, sincerity. The role was very complex from the point of view of interpretation: a shade more or less would make Harry irritating or cloying or overbearing or implausible (as most of the "heroes" in recent films). Sure, there's a bit of technical greenness, but only reviewing movies you may also notice some deep facets quite unusual for such a young actor. I never understood why Daniel doesn't appreciate some of its interpretations, especially in the second half of the saga. I suspect that the reason has more to do with memories and personal situations rather than with the interpretation itself.

I disagree completely.

To start, he looks nothing like the description of Harry in the books. From book 1 through to book 7 there is not one describable feature of Harry that is visible in Radcliffe.

I found him unlikeable, consistently giving off an air of pretentiousness and entitlement that does not suit the mostly humble character of Harry Potter.

Casting children is not a crapshoot for how they will turn out. They have parents, and you can generally make a lot of assumptions about how a child will physically continue to grow based on their mother and father. They cast a short, chubby, rich kid with lifeless brown hair, when Harry is supposed to be a very skinny, unsure kid with out of control jet-black hair. How on earth did they get it so wrong?

The elephant in the room, of course, is that Daniel Radcliffe is a horrible actor. His delivery is off, at all times. He can't emote, he overacts, and he is consistently very aware of the camera. His on-screen conversations feel forced, his on-screen relationships feel distant, and there is a breathlessness to his speech that makes him seem like he is constantly anxious.

I love the Harry Potter books series, and because of the casting of the children, I find the film series unwatchable.

It's pretty clear that you never got past the physical likeness or lack thereof. Who resents an 11 year old child for how he looks? And chubby? Dan has never been chubby - he had the rounded facial features of a child until the third movie, but by no stretch of the imagination is he chubby. I suppose you expected the methods of Scorsese to be applied and have a child actor actually be starved and live in a cupboard for versimilitude! And yes, by all means make the same child dye/perm his hair and wear contacts for 10 years to match some impossible genetic mix of pitch black hair and green eyes.

It's pretty clear that you never got past the physical likeness or lack thereof.

Not at all. I mention a range of problems in my post. I'm not sure how you could possibly think that I never got past his physical resemblance.

However, they didn't cast a 20 year old Asian woman, or a 35 year old Greek man. They did cast a child. So they thought getting his age right was important. Where do you stop?

And chubby? Dan has never been chubby - he had the rounded facial features of a child until the third movie, but by no stretch of the imagination is he chubby.

He is noticeably chubby in the first film.

I suppose you expected the methods of Scorsese to be applied and have a child actor actually be starved and live in a cupboard for versimilitude

Some children are skinny, some aren't. When casting a child who is described as skinny, it's pretty simple what you should do.

And yes, by all means make the same child dye/perm his hair and wear contacts for 10 years to match some impossible genetic mix of pitch black hair and green eyes.

Imagine dying an actor's hair for a movie role! How incredible and impossible that would be! There are people in the world with green eyes. There are people in the world with black hair. But yes, contacts or computer graphics can easily change the colour of the eyes.

Who resents an 11 year old child for how he looks?

No one is talking about resenting a child for his appearance. I'm resenting the choice of the film company choosing a child who can't act who doesn't look like the character he's meant to be portraying. If Daniel Radcliffe was an amazing actor I could overlook the lack of physical resemblance, OR if he looked just like Harry should, then I would at least understand why they cast such a poor actor. But he has NEITHER of the things you would look for if you were casting Harry Potter.

Who cast him? Why? Are you aware of the controversy of the casting of the three lead children in the Harry Potter film series? Do you realise they auditioned thousands of children across the UK, and then when the final children were chosen out of the blue without being part of the process, a number of people involved in the project quit?

You are either aware of all these things, and lying, or you're making things up and you don't understand what you're talking about.

I did know that some of the other directors for Potter had wanted to cast Liam Aiken and another American kid was in the running along with an animated version of the series but had never heard about the other two being cast outside of the normal process. And the fact that Dan was cast after an extensive search only speaks to them being quite picky. He was coming off very good reviews for David Copperfield at the time too - so clearly lots of people including Maggie Smith thought well of his abilities.

Incidentally, you see more of Dan in David Copperfield and it's pretty clear he is not chubby. Also contacts to change eye color specially to light colors don't work that well. They tried unsuccessfully with the young Lilly Potter in the last movie as well as Dan in the first.

I did know that some of the other directors for Potter had wanted to cast Liam Aiken and another American kid was in the running along with an animated version of the series but had never heard about the other two being cast outside of the normal process. And the fact that Dan was cast after an extensive search only speaks to them being quite picky. He was coming off very good reviews for David Copperfield at the time too - so clearly lots of people including Maggie Smith thought well of his abilities.

What other directors? Why would they cast an American as an english boy? And I specifically said that Radcliffe wasn't cast as a result of an extensive search, I'm saying they chose other people and then at the last minute he was given the role.

Computer graphics changing eye colour don't work very well? Hair dye doesn't work very well?

You've ignored almost everything I've said.