Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Hughie reviews EQUUS - That Revealing Play Starring Harry Potter where he exposes his magic 'wand'!

Hey folks, Harry here... Everyone everywhere in the media is talking about this stage play in the UK - and more than that - it seems to all focus on the fact that he's totally naked for 10 minutes of the play - and how his nude form will destroy the world's moral integrity bringing us all to ruin. Well, our reviewer Hughie saw it this opening night - and the story isn't as short as a weiner, but rather it's about taking a brave young actor seriously, instead of what flopped about on stage. It seems that Daniel Radcliffe has done a helluva good job, and as for the juvenile remarks about his "wand" let's consider the greater ramifications of this play... it's that Daniel Radcliffe is more than Harry Potter - and this is his first brave step into a wider realm of acting.

Hi I remember seeing something on the site a while ago announcing that Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe would be making his first break from the role on the London stage in a production of Peter Shaffers 'Equus'. As the play started previewing here in London last night I thought I would offer my thoughts on how the whole thing turned out, after all everyone must be itching to know what Daniel has to offer outside of the kid with the glasses and the weird scar on his forehead. For anyone who doesnt know the story, it tells the tale of a child psychiatrist (played by none other then Richard Griffiths who will be known to Harry Potter nuts as Uncle Vernon) who is asked to treat a teenage boy who was arrested after blinding six horses. As you can probaby guess, the reasoning behind this act isn't entirely simple or pleasant and this is what the play deals with. Its always risky moving straight from well known nice guy role to a dark and complex character (see James Van Der-Beek in moving from Dawsons Creek to The Rules of Attraction), and i'm sure Daniel Radcliffes people had this in mind when he entered this role, but let's face it, the boy certainly has something to prove. It's no secret that since the very first Potter movie he has been widely noticed to be lacking in the acting department. The same was also said of his co-star's but at the end of the day, the film isn't called Ron Weasly and the Philosophers Stone (yes I know in America it wasnt called Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone either but I will be many feet below the ground and be feasted on by worms before I ever refer to it as the 'Sorcerers Stone'). Anyway, whilst it has been noticed that he has improved as a performer as the films have gone on, there have still been severe doubts over his ability to sustain any type of career as a 'serious actor' once the franchise has run its course. If you have something to prove as an actor though, the London stage is the place to do it. Theres no fancy editing, no camera tricks and no voice effects to save you there. So did he stand up to the test? I'm amazed to say, yes. It was such an obvious ploy by Daniel Radcliffes management to try and get him taken seriously by putting him in a 'serious play' in a setting where 'serious actors' go to do their thing and show the world how 'serious' they are, that I would have loved to come away saying 'the boys crap and this just goes further to prove it'. The fact is though, he really is quite good in it. It's obvious that he doesn't have a well trained theatrical voice, it croaks sometimes when it should boom, but in terms of overall stage presence he really seemed to have it. One of the key traits of the character is a menacing, judgemental stare which Radcliffe captures perfectly. He really evokes a sense of turmoil and distress that the kid is experiencing over his feeling's for the horses and the sense that no one will understand his worship and the reasons for why he has performed such an act. The biggest compliment I can give is the he truly goes from being 'Harry Potter on stage' to being Alan Strang, a disturbed young man with issues regarding horses. The guy spends a significant amount of time in the second act as naked as the day he was born but by this point the entire supporting cast from all 4 Harry Potter films could come on and perform an elaborate burlesque routine and you wouldn't care because Daniel Radcliffe has taken it beyond this. I'm under no illusion that a lot of people will be going to see the play because they are interested in the story. The play could consist of him walking on stage, taking a crap and walking off again and it would still sell out. What makes the difference is that people will walk out of this hopefully thinking more about the play, what happened in it and how it was done, rather then thinking about what one of the lead actors has been in before. It will also force the wider movie press to think of something more interesting then 'its darker then the previous films and the actors have risen to it' to say in their future reviews of the upcoming Potter films. J.K Rowling wouldn't even know where to buy ink black enough to write something darker then this. The death's of Sirius Black and Dumbledore will seem as distressing as the site of a care bear hugging a teletubby in comparison to what Alan Strang gets up to though it is good to see that Radcliffe does have the acting chops to give these moments the gravitas they deserve when they do make it to the screen. For anyone who cares, the rest of the cast are also great. Richard Griffiths is perfect as the psychiatrist who is trying to unravel why it is that the kid has done what he has done whilst struggling internally over whether it is right to force him into a state of socially defined normality. I hate to think that some people will genuinely only know this brilliant actor as Uncle Vernon from the Potter films so it will be good for some of these people to see him in a better light. When all is said and done though, this production will be remembered for one thing, and luckilly it will be that the boy who couldn't act took on the biggest challenge he could find, and suceeded beyond all expectations. From Hughie
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:05 p.m. CST


    by jimmy rabbitte

    magic? wand

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Now you're running play reviews?

    by El Scorcho

    Well, that's new...

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Harry potter

    by iwontwin

    and his one condom. I love EXTRAS.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Harry, YOU made a juvenile comment about his wand!

    by Frank Duckett

    "...and the story isn't as short as a weiner, but rather it's about taking a brave young actor seriously, instead of what flopped about on stage." I think Harry is having a Britney Spears-style meltdown.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:18 p.m. CST

    I hear...

    by jimmy rabbitte

    ...Tim Hardaway saw the show and thought it was 'great'.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Is this "Showgirls" for Radcliffe?

    by Gorrister

    Elizabeth Berkley thought going full frontal in "Showgirls" would boast her career like it did for Sharon Stone, but it completely backfired on her. I doubt this play will harm Radcliffe's career in the UK, but I'm interested to see how the US audience responds to his future endeavours.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST

    We've covered many plays in the past & Frank...


    We've covered all sorts of plays in the past, usually a couple a year - I'd cover more if people sent them in. <BR><BR>And Frank Duckett... I made an IRONIC comment to show how juvenile and retarded such comments are. Because - we all know how retarded and juvenile I am.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:24 p.m. CST

    I work for a Harry Potter fan site

    by Bean_

    And all anyone will ever talk about is Dan Radcliffe, and how he'll be naked, etc. It's extremely depressing and I hoped that the play would give people more than what they were intending on seeing it for. This reviewer brought me hope, thanks!

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Hermoine take notes here!

    by RedwingsHoolihan

    ....I'm going to hell for that.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:36 p.m. CST

    you need a regular theater column

    by blacklodgebob

    It doesn't have to be every week, but it would be nice. If for no other reason, how about that every other show on Broadway is an adaptation of a movie. If you're coving video games and book, you might as well have an occasional theater column (that is, more than twice a year thank you).

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Uh, Spoiler Alert!!

    by filmicdrummer17

    Not for me...I've already read the books. But for anyone who hasn't, those deaths he mentioned come as quite a shock.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST

    It's fucking inevitable..........

    by RedwingsHoolihan

    Someone's going to say "Harry gotta eat".....Then I'm going to break into their house and slap the piss outta them.

  • Feb. 17, 2007, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Oh Daniel Radcliffe! I love your speesee spicy sausage!

    by J-Dizzle

    Its inevitable that Kevin and Bean will devote an entire segment to it.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, midnight CST

    If thinking of him as Uncle Vernon is bad...

    by Pascal

    Where am I that I'll always think of him as Dr Meinheimer?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Yes, I would care...

    by KCMOSHer

    ...if the entire supporting cast of all four HP films came out and performed an elaborate burlesque routine. Because, I mean, shit...that'd be a seriously intense production number. The sheer number and variety of performers would mean that, inevitably, they'd perform one variant or the other of 'The Aristocrats'. I'd pay a dollar to see that over yet another staging of 'Equus'.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Stunt Acting, pure and simple.

    by TheGhostWhoLurks

    I'd be MUCH more impressed with Radcliffe if he'd decided to take a role that WASN'T such an obvious cynical attempt to be seen as a "serious actor." If he wants to be seen as a "real" actor, then how about simply ACTING and letting your performance speak for itself, without the shallow and cheap stunt of being naked on stage? I'd have more respect for him if his choice in roles pointed in the direction of Equus — then I could actually buy him doing the role. But going from Harry Potter straight into playing a nude nutjob who gets his rocks off blinding horses??? It's just a desperate attempt to be seen as "legit" in the snooty and bizarre world of acting.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 12:58 a.m. CST

    For christ's sake, describe his cock 'n' balls!

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    We all know it's a good play, and thanks for telling us about the acting, but come on, if this was a female star everyone would demand details of the nudity. <p> I can honestly say that I find Radcliffe about as sexy as a Ford Taurus (which is to say, not at all), but I am at least idly curious. I mean, he's a film star, and he's naked! So stop faffing about and give us the details!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Art column

    by Dwarves

    Pam Anderson and Cameron Diaz bought Art from Marilyn Minter two months ago, and Claire Danes was at the Nicole Klagsburn opening last month if you need a reason to discuss art. Aside from that art openings here in NYC have alot to offer.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:32 a.m. CST

    He's worth $28 Million +

    by Chriss

    Oh boo fucking hoo if he is typcast as Harry Potter. Children are running around this planet without limbs (well maybe not running) and starving to death, but you're worried about this little brat and his acting career.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST


    by EyeofPolyphemus

    Elizabeth bekley's career was ruined because SHOWGIRLS was an awful movie. EQUUS is one of the best, most disturbing plays ever written. Raddcliffe cannot go wrong with it.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:54 a.m. CST

    I'm going totally naked for 10 minutes of this talkback

    by Laserbrain


  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:54 a.m. CST

    What exactly did he do? Have sex with a horse?

    by Mike_D

    I dont get it...everyone over in England must be pretty damn bored to see a child's wang.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:54 a.m. CST


    by Laserbrain


  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:55 a.m. CST


    by Lovecraftfan

    Ya cause Equus is just like Showgirls

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Harry Peter and The Blind Stallion

    by NickDWolfy

    It happens between book 6 and 7

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Damn*t - Thanks for the Snuck-In-Book-Spoiler

    by Screwuhippie

    I know this is a review about a boy and his whorse (and various other phallic jokes) but ... freaking mark it a spoiler or something Harry for us slightly offish folk that have not read the books yet and are waiting for the movies ... Nice to know of those two fine gentlemen that I can look forward to dying now in the upcoming movies. Darn-freaking-darn-it. Anyone else slightly irked or am I the only one on the planet that has not read the books ...

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:28 a.m. CST

    I have NEWFOUND RESPECT for Daniel Radcliffe

    by Proman1984

    I can totally respect what he's doing and yes it takes guts and balls (no pun here). I think it's a sign of true actor and a true individual to take on a role like that and I admire that in him. I wish him luck in the future.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:30 a.m. CST


    by blackwood

    is the least interesting thing about "Equus", no matter whose willy is wagging on stage.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:45 a.m. CST


    by lionbiu

    many stage actors/actresses have been nude in various plays. It's hardly a big deal I just want to know if he can carry a emotion, because in every single potter film he has always been the weaker link in acting. I wish him good luck, but this does smell like "stunt" casting and the play has sold over £1.7 million worth of ticket's...and I am soooo sure they are all there to see the play ;)

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:29 a.m. CST



    Um - this story clearly has had, from the beginning a SPOILER box around it on the front page.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:55 a.m. CST

    About those spoiler boxes, Harry

    by Dannychico

    They really need a redesign. I NEVER register those things as spoiler alerts. The frames just seem to highlight a story as more important than the rest. Of course, it doesn't help that the word "Spoiler" is teeny-tiny on the very side of the box, nor that the word appears as "poiler" on my browser. You should, frankly, invisotext those HP spoilers above. They are pretty major.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Richard Griffiths

    by Trader Groucho 2

    also has a supporting role in Venus, as Peter O'Toole's friend.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 4:55 a.m. CST

    I think the chick who plays Hermione should do the same

    by Doc_Strange

    Girl has developed nicely over the years and... WHAT? FUCK you guys!!! You know deep down that's what you want to see too.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 4:58 a.m. CST

    Mike_D - Radcliffe chose Equus because

    by Trader Groucho 2

    next to Hamlet, it's the best role out there for a young stage actor. I'm sure he took it not because of the nudity, but despite it. What the frakk did you expect him to do, "No Sex Please We're British"??? Get yourself an education. Read the play.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 5:42 a.m. CST

    Well done Daniel

    by John_lndn

    I have a huge respect for Daniel for choosing to play in Equus. He could have just chosen to do a stupid teen movie and it would have been a blockbuster. But he decided to do the most difficult thing an actor can do: theatre, and London theatre! 90% of Hollywood "so-called" good actors wouldn't last 2 minutes in London stage. The fact that Peter Shaffer thought Radcliffe has the talent to play this character already said everything. This author doesn't care how the actor is called. People can make all the immatures comments they want to show us how ignorants some of you are, but that won't change the fact that Equus is one of the most acclaimed, awarded, respected and succesful plays of all time. And Alan Strang is the most difficult role a young actor can play. That's why he chose it, because it's a great role, nudity is just a small part of the role and the play, absolutely necessary, but just a part of it, not the point of the play. TheGhostWhoLurks, you are the cynical, because what you ask it's what he did 'ACTING and letting your performance speak for itself'. If there is nudity or not in the play is not related with that. And why can not an actor go from one character to a different one? don't be senseless. But you are not even right, because between HP and Equus Dan already did an independent movie who will be released this year and that everyone is loving too in the pre-screenings. It's very brave he decided to play such a difficult character in Equus, and he succeded. So, I have to congratulate him. Only one thing Hughie, you saw the first preview, as I'm sure you know they use previews to improve some things. It was just his first night, he has received a very good voice training, if you go to see it in a week, I'm sure you won't find any problems. That's why reviews are made after the offcial opening night, not the preview night. But the fact you thought he was so good even the fisrt night he was in a stage it's impressive. :) So again congratulations!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Really, this is WIAIN...

    by Negative Man

    ...As in, Whatever It Ain't Interesting News. Old play with a new actor in the role. Heck, the Bald Britney deservers a TB before this does. And the Bald Britney deserves a TB as much as a new Byron Allen celebrity ass-kissin' show.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Potter Gotta Eat!

    by TheMackenzie

    I couldn't resist. Come forth and slap me...

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Will Kemp

    by Anna Valerious

    Isn't he in this as well? I know I had promised myself that I'd try to see Will-chan onstage, but to be honest, the subject matter in this one makes me uncomfortable. :/ I just wish I knew when "Miguel and William" would be released in the US...

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:27 a.m. CST

    42nd!!! Horse Fvkker!!!

    by sacmetal

    The dood makes romance with a horse regardless (don't say irregardless) of the actor. Yay for horse love!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:47 a.m. CST

    Oh Sure, Keep Crushing on Hermione, ya little Polanskis

    by tonagan

    Couldn't resist :)

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:51 a.m. CST

    cool to see a review of a play here

    by the grasshopper

    i have tickets to see this in May. the play is a great read, and i look forward to seeing it staged. kudos to Dan.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:06 a.m. CST


    by darquelyte

    Dumbledore is dead? (sniffle sniffle sniffle) WHY GOD! WHY! Why'd you have to go and tell me that?! Oh wait, I read the book when it came out...never mind. And yeah, what's the over/under on when Hermione will do a nude scene? I'd camp outside the theater for that. Just saying. ~ÐL

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:24 a.m. CST


    by smackemyackem

    One might assume that the spoiler box referred not to the Harry Potter books, but, rather, to Equus.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Gotta ask. In the play he cums sitting nekkid on horse

    by Teamwak

    How on earth do they show that on stage? Mans gotta know these things. Does Daniel make an O face?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Mmmmm Jenny Agutter naked ...

    by Mace Tofu

    Keep going....Harry dick going away. More Jenny...and talkbackers , girls can show off their tits at 16 in the UK ( Page 3 ) So before I go get my Logan's Run, Walkabout and Werewolf DVDs out does Harry hump the Horse onstage? Naked? Need more Jenny now! Thanks for the idea Tom.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Emma Watson and the blind donkeys play

    by dtpena

    *crosses fingers*

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:33 a.m. CST

    i just got off the phone...

    by DECKERS

    ..with Daniel's penis. It says nuts to a sequel/prequel unless it gets a 50% cut (ya know, to make it 1 inch). His strangely hairy asshole says hi too.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:37 a.m. CST


    by misnomer

    read this in school- only like 12 at the time, jesus.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Let the guy broaden his horizons...

    by FilmFanatik

    Nothing wrong with that. He's just an actor trying to stretch and do something different. So let him do it.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Nipples on Daniel Radcliffe = Nipples on Optimus Prime

    by Little Beavis


  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:07 a.m. CST

    What if Harry Knowles had that part?

    by Cotton McKnight

    Would that be as big a deal, I wonder? What would the reaction be?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:07 a.m. CST

    It's Sorcerer's Stone you Brit Git

    by dundundles

    It's Sorcerer's Stone you Brit Git

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Double You Flavour, Double Your Fun

    by Sam Raimi's Car

    With double-mint double-mint double-mint gum!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:29 a.m. CST


    by rhaps0dy

    Spot on about the spoilers i haven't read the books so now i too know that those guys die, i'm alittle annoyed in all honesty!! Harry having a spoiler box on the main page implies spoilers in regards to the play itself not about the harry potter movies!!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:50 a.m. CST

    The thing about the Spoiler

    by DewMan

    It is true that the article is tagged spoiler, but it's assumed that it refers to Equus. A person shouldn't read a Titanic review and find out what happens in The Departed.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:55 a.m. CST


    by rhaps0dy


  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Re: "The thing about the Spoiler"

    by smackemyackem

    I swear! It's like I'm not even here!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Got my tickets!

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Jill & I are traveling about Europe in early April and we have tickets to the Saturday 3-31 evening show (row P, 24 & 25 if you want to come up and say "Howdy"). Getting to London: $1200. Getting to see a West End production: $250. Getting to see the "magic wand": ummm, I'll be looking into his eyes. Sounds like a double fab time. What else should we see & do whilst in London, Paris & Amsterdam????

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Would they remake the movie with Radcliffe?

    by performingmonkey

    D'you think they'd consider remaking the movie if this stage adaptation is successful? The Richard Burton movie is thirty years old now so it's possible.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:15 a.m. CST

    At least he didn't spoil who kills Dumbledore

    by dtpena

    btw this is a very good review

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:21 a.m. CST


    by Frank Duckett

    Me: "Spoilers about Equus, eh? okay I'll tread lightly- Holy crap Sirius Black and Dumbledore die?!?!? Thank ye, Harry. Thank ye sooooo much."

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Spoiler vs Spoilier

    by Screwuhippie

    Headgeek er Harry or ... yeah ... thanks for the reply. Once again we are stuck answering the age old question ... if a Spoiler falls in the middle of a review of something else does it count as a spoiler? I think if the tree falls it still spoils. I know you don't post very much these days ... what with big celebs calling you right before romantic interludes but ... take at least 1-2 seconds to maybe comment in the pre-emble "Also ... Harry Potter Series Spoilers Contained Within as Well" ... I honestly think that wouldn't take to much time. Just thinking ... we all miss stuff. Nice site ... maybe hire a QA division or something :) Again ... if i'm out in left field simply ignore me (which most will do anyway ... so why am I giving guidance ... nevermind)

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:37 a.m. CST

    i'm impressed.

    by occula

    where do you guys live that you didn't know about the spoilers in the books? i mean, here in america there was an epic brouhaha because some guys drove their car past a line waiting for the HP book at a bookshop and used a megaphone to shout out the secret. i mean, it ain't much of a secret anymore. regardless, i agree about spoilering something that isn't supposed to be full of spoilers about something else! sloppy, sloppy. i also commend dan radcliffe for this but personally think he should have done some actor's gang or shakespeare in the park first.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Rocks ... BIG Rocks

    by Screwuhippie

    I live under a really big Rock. Not some steroid pumped part time wrestler/hollywood type "The Rock" but a real rock. This enables me to ignore things that most of the world knows. Unfortunately my Rock is semi-permiable so ... mis-leading spoiler reviews are its Kryptonite. Alas ... as America learned in WW2 ... you can't be ignorant or stay out of it forever. On a side note ... gotta love a society that encourages young Actors to skip the "Actor's Gang/Shakespeare in the park" path and jumps straight into full-frontal nudity. Thats a great way to re-capture the worlds love. Heck throw in some horse-sex-themes and you will win become endeared to millions!! Who here isn't excited about Danny boys first non-potter blockbuster. See-biscuits 2 ... a boy, a whorse and stuff no one should want to see. *Steps off his soapbox* Again ... more power to those that like this stuff.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:49 a.m. CST

    If this comes to Broadway...

    by HootDad

    I'll definitely see it. And not because of DR or RG or anyone else in the cast, but because this is one of my favorite plays ever and I'd love to see a full-blown Broadway level production. I'd actually love to direct it, but good luck getting any local theater with the guts to do it. And it CAN'T be done without the nudity. That would be "rubbish" as I read DR said in an interview. I've actually seen it twice - once at a college (without nudity) and once at an "equity waiver" house in LA (with nudity). The fact is, the drama simply doesn't work nearly as well without it. I applaud DR for taking on such a demanding role and, it would seem, succeeding. It will be interesting to read the "official" reviews once it opens.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Another movie?

    by HootDad

    Interesting question, monkey. I saw it on stage before seeing the movie and I was disappointed in the movie because the play is such a "stage piece" and I don't think it adapted well. And I'm not sure it could.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Potter Spoilers

    by Gorrister

    Personally, I think this is just plain silly. The book in which Sirius Black dies has been out for about four years and the one where Dumbledore dies has been out for nearly two years. Why on Earth are these considered 'spoilers' after so much time? Would it be a spoiler if Harry mentioned Romeo and Juliet die at the end of their story? Or that Lenny dies in "Of Mice and Men"? These books have been out in the public for YEARS. If certain Harry Potter fans would rather wait several years for the movie versions instead of picking up a book and actually using their brains, that's their problem.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Um, the thing is...

    by Lemming

    ..Daniel Radcliffe's acting is *awful*. He was picked for HP, because he looked like HP. That's it. Step back a minute to take your collective cocks out of Rowling's arsehole and look at them as *films* rather than your geek-gasm of seeing HP on screen. He's really bad. Am I the only one seeing the elephant in the room? If the films relied on Radcliffe in any way (which they don't: "Look at the hippogrpyh! Wheee!"), then they would have bombed. In the first one, it was forgiveable - he was about 10 - but he's got worse as the films roll on.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Agree about Radcliffe's acting

    by Gorrister

    Personally, I think most of the HP cast is poorly done. As said above, Radcliffe is a bad actor and only got the role because he looks like Harry. I also don't care for Watson as Hermione. She is a better actor than Radcliffe, but she's just plain wrong for the part. And I especially dislike the new Dumbledore. This guy has never read a Harry Potter book and it shows. Richard Harris was so much closer to the book-version of Dumbledore. This new guy portrays a short-tempered, loud and rash version of a character who is notoriously calm, soft-spoken, playful and just slightly mischievious.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 11:40 a.m. CST

    No sir, I didn't like it

    by BannedOnTheRun

    All the best to Daniel Radcliffe, but I just don't care for the play. I've seen what I'd call excellent productions -- great acting, great staging -- I just don't like it.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 11:42 a.m. CST

    I agree

    by justcheckin

    I don't consider it a spoiler after that much time. Good for an actor trying something new and being fairly good.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 12:05 p.m. CST




  • Feb. 18, 2007, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Of course its a

    by rhaps0dy

    Spoiler, this is a movie website not a book review site, they don't review the harry potter books on here....well, i assume they don't, if they do i haven't seen it! For that reason i didn't expect the spoiler, also Gorrister i highly doubt that the HP books are written to such a high standard of literature so as to use my brain that much more than the movie...again i only assume...

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Why's he all the production will be remembered for?

    by Jbud

    It's not like the film reviews here only talk about casting and acting. Is it because the direction/production were boring or bad? I mean, if they were, please tell me how. I know this is aint it cool news but that doesn't mean all we want to know about is how was Harry Potter and Uncle Vernon. Plus, those of us who are theater fans in America would most certainly remember this for Griffiths, especially after the fantastic impression he made in The History Boys in England and on Broadway (and on screen)

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST

    the Philosophers Stone

    by Cedar_Room

    is what the author called the book. And she's British, so I guess we stick with her. Unless you want to start calling our young wizard friend Chad Pooter as well. The book's name was changed for American audiences. Is that because Americans are too stupid to know what a philosopher is? I can't say for certain, but does anyone know the actual reason why the name was changed?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:09 p.m. CST


    by muttoo

    The bookstore posters for Book 7 tell too much about the spoiler for books 6 and 7. And it's not like you can avoid it - the giant 2-word slogan is all it takes.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Richard Griffith's is...

    by ian216a

    UNCLE MONTY!!!! For christs sake, no self-respecting film geek isn't going know that!! And those that don't? I mean to have them - EVEN if it is to mean BURGLARY!!!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST

    How does a 17 year old keep from...

    by Kirbymanly

    ...getting a hard-on while kissing a naked girl on stage? Magic indeed.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Censorship of horses

    by jethroc

    Isn't anyone going to spoil why he gouged out the horses' eyes?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:40 p.m. CST


    by Thomas Cromwell


  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Uncle Monty

    by Oceanclub

    I can't believe someone took several dozen comments to mention Richard Griffith's Uncle Monty! Honestly, if a film geek hasn't seen "Withnail & I" - indeed, has seen it and memorized it - they're not a film geek. "Flowers are essentially tarts; prostitutes for the bees..." P.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 2:46 p.m. CST


    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    Here in the US the character is actually called "Har Pot"; the publisher felt the British version of his name with its additional syllables was too complex and off-putting. <p> Any time you wonder about things being dumbed down for an American audience, just look at our president... that should answer all your questions.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:10 p.m. CST

    The Electric Car killed Dumbledore

    by Kentucky Colonel

    or was it the other way around?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:12 p.m. CST

    you know what? i take it back.

    by occula

    i managed to be a 35-year old american affiliated with the film & tv industry who didn't know ONE SINGLE THING about 'lost' until i watched all the DVDs about 4 months ago. and it's been out for almost 3 years. however, now that i've inadvertently learned that lenny dies in 'of mice and men,' i'm going to kill myself.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Hooray Oceanclub

    by MaxCalifornia.

    Glad someone finally mentioned Monty. Uncle Vernon? Screw that. Griffiths will always be that terrible c**t, Uncle Monty. "Here, hare, here".

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Re: What if he gets a "Rodney" on stage?

    by Corwin_X2

    Plantage55 said: "Seriously! What if he started to stumble over his lines...perhaps there's a chesty lass in the front row. Maybe Scarlett Johannson came by to see the fuss - and little Harry got stone hard" ... He doesn't need to look in the front row. I don't think it's been mentioned here yet that he's not just wandering around the stage naked on his own. It's actually a sex scene with a red-hot 24 year old actress named Joanna Christie - who is also buck nekkid throughout. I'd be amazed if he didn't get an occasional boner, especially as they get more comfortable in the part!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Why does being taken seriously mean having

    by superninja

    to get nekkid or play troubled psychos? No, he is trying to shed his Harry Potter image, just like the other child actors will, even though it made them famous. Because they'll get more attention that way. It's of course less disturbing than Dakota Fanning wanting to play a character who is teasing and then raped (and getting permission from all the adults around her). I never thought Radcliffe was a terrible actor, I thought Columbus was a terrible director.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:33 p.m. CST

    It's "than", not "then"...

    by Ray Gamma

    you illiterate moron.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Why all the fuss over "Philosopher's" vs. "Sorcerer's"?

    by mraig

    Does it really make Britain so much intellectually superior to the US if the word "philosopher" is in the title of their book for ten-year-olds but not in ours? It's not like the American version cuts out J K Rowling's brilliant ten-page exegesis on Plato's theory of the forms. From what I've seen of the series, there are a lot more sorcerers than philosophers, and when Rowling and Potter were nobodies the publishing company thought it might be a good idea for the title to actually reflect the content of the book. Now she could call it "Harry Potter and the Misfiled 1040A Form" and it would still sell to every kid in America and England.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Those that are protesting can go f*ck themselves

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    Like how dare Radcliffe for seeking to expand his horizons past Harry Potter? Those that protest his choice of roles should check themselves because as HP fans they were the ones getting all sorts of flak from the religious right that sought to label them as devil and occult worshipers. Morality is a funny thing huh??

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 5:03 p.m. CST


    by occula

    did you just say 'apollo dies' knowing FULL WELL that some of us have not seen BSG #13 or 14? you better be talking about something other than that show, you spineless fuck. and i am serious, if you aren't, you should start worrying about your karmic afterlife. if you aren't, well, apologies.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Withnail And I...

    by workshed

    ...maybe they could remake it with Daniel Radcliffe and David Tennant..? Or maybe not. Seriously, anynoe who purports to be a film buff and hasn't seen Withnail needs to go back to school and return when they have seen it at least one hundred times. It's only the funniest and heartbreaking film ever written and, more than any other, the film i didn't want to end. I saw it for the first time at a cinema in Doncaster (on it's first day of release as was the norm for anything from Handmade Films) and remember trying to dry my face till the tears didn't show anymore. An impossible feat and one i look forward to repeating for the rest of my life. Richard E.Grant turned in what may be the single greatest performance by an actor in modern film; only matched by the brilliance of Richard Griffiths in his dressing gown. Oh, and i think Radcliffe has been brave to take on such a mighty work as Eqqus (although Peter Firth was, for me, perfectly cast). Let's hope his post-Potter film choices will be just as interesting.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:04 p.m. CST

    No way he tops Elijah Wood in Sin City

    by chrth

    That has to be the best counter-typecasting role of all time.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Philosopher's versus Sorceror's Stone

    by chrth

    The Philosopher's Stone had as much to do with Philosophy as AICN does, hence the change. The change in name is due to a cultural difference in the body of legend; if there was a book called Harry Potter and Paul Bunyan's Axe, they would've changed it to Harry Potter and the Giant Axe (or similar), since Paul Bunyan is not part of European popular culture.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:19 p.m. CST

    The Philosophers Stone

    by Gorrister

    The big deal about it is that The Philosophers Stone is an artifact that has real-life historical value. People all over the world tried for centuries to create the legendary Philosophers Stone. A man named Nicholas Flamel came along and claimed to have finally succeeded in doing so, which made him instantly famous. Over the centuries since, there have been numerous "Flamel sighings", suggesting he really did create one. But a "Sorcerors Stone" is complete rubbish created by Scholastic. There is no historical aspect to a Sorcerer's Stone (prior to the mid-90's, that is). Scholastic assumed American kids were too stupid to have ever heard of the legend of the Philosophers Stone, so they changed the name, despite the fact the the book sold very well in the UK without a name change. It has nothing to do with cultural differences. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of childrens stories that originated in Europe that are very well known in the US (Ever hear of The Little Mermaid, Little Red Riding Hood, or The Hunchback of Notre Dame?) The name change was purely a dumbing down of the title to appeal to kids whom Scholastic assumed were ignorant and borderline illiterate.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Gorrister: It has nothing to do with stupidity, it's

    by chrth

    *exposure* that's the issue. The only reason I know about the Philosopher's Stone is because I played D&D. They don't cover Medieval Alchemy in grade schools in America. The other ones you've cited were all Disneyified at the minimum, so children were exposed to them either through the movies or through various Children's Fairy Tales books. The Philosopher's Stone, however, has never--in my experience, which includes working at a bookstore for a couple years--made the jump into American children's literature.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Philosophers Stone

    by Cedar_Room

    I'd never heard of the legend of the philosopher's stone before I heard of the Potter book - but it didn't matter because I knew what a philosopher was, and also a stone. Are Americans out there seriously suggesting that the youth of America have no idea what a philosopher is? It would be like calling the book Harry Potter and the Panpiniform Pebble? Oh and another thing, surely a book company isn't aiming its business at the borderline illiterate child markey anyway? Theres surely little chance of profit there. This isn't intended as a rant against stupid Americans either by the way, I'm just genuinely curious.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Thank God for...

    by TheGhostWhoLurks

    "Full Metal Alchemist," then! :)

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room: What does the Philosopher Stone have to do

    by chrth

    with Philosophy? NOTHING. So if all you knew was what a Philosopher was, and what a Stone was, all you'd assume is that it's a Stone that allows you to discourse like Plato. Would you want such a stone? I know I sure wouldn't. Nor would I care what Harry Potter would do with it.<p> Sorceror's Stone, in all honesty, better conveys what Flamel's stone does. Now, JK Rowling wasn't wrong to use Philosopher's Stone, because children in Europe have probably been exposed to the concept of the Philosopher's Stone and thus would have a better gist of it.<p> I also want to point something else out: Scholastic was taking a risk calling it the "Sorceror's" Stone, as several religious groups are extremely intolerant of anything that smacks of magic.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7 p.m. CST

    "aeris dies"

    by ian216a

    If ever there was proof needed that I shall live and die as a geek, it will be the amount of time I spent laughing at that. And back to "Withnail and I", I was lucky enough to see it when it first came out as a teenager and innocent in the ways of wanton self medication. I thought it was good. When I watched it again years later and realised how the first 20 minutes was really just the two of them on speed... I mean, GOOD GOD!!!

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:02 p.m. CST


    by occula

    thank you, indiana. i retract all 'cunt' comments and instead seek the balance with 'fluffy kitten' labels instead. you see, our cable isn't hooked up, so i have to wait for my friends to tivo the episodes (because i am a bittorrent snob), and i am assiduously avoiding all radio/internet potential spoilerage. and now, that i've shown what a massive dork i am, i'm going to book tickets to 'equus.' HAHAAHAHAH

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:02 p.m. CST

    well I'm from Britain, and I

    by Cedar_Room

    well I'm from Britain, and I don't think most people here were aware of the history surrounding the real philosophers stone - and I doubt most children thought they were picking up a book which discussed the influence of Jean Jacques Rousseau - but americans are always changing stuff so there you go.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:04 p.m. CST

    "book which discuss the influence of Jean Jacques

    by chrth

    Rousseau" ... it's called our History Books ;)

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 7:27 p.m. CST

    I'd like to make love to a horse.

    by CTU Mole

    Not only is it a beautiful animal but you always have a ride home.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 8:58 p.m. CST


    by Colonel Kane

    how big is his cock?

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:50 p.m. CST

    You people are all tards...

    by Bronx Cheer

    except for the fellow who was talking up "Withnail and I." That is a GREAT fillum. Now, go back to fantasizing about seeing Harry's peter. Der.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Hey Philosophers!

    by :-o

    America is Britain's younger, hotter sister who got all the boys. Live with it.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 9:54 p.m. CST

    If Harry wanted more play reviews,

    by Bronx Cheer

    he'd have a NYC bureau. I know AICN had one in the past, but it went away. I wrote the site to ask why they don't have one, and I heard nothing back. Considering all the film production going on in town (I Am Legend, anyone?), along with the plays, you'd think Mr. Harry "I Love Plays, It's You Losers That Are Too Stupid To Appreciate Theatre" Knowles would have a NYC bureau.</p> <p>God, I hate everything.</p>

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Apollo dosen't die. It's Boomer who dies...

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Not hot sexy Asian Boomer, but Herb Jefferson "Soul Brother Boomer #1" who kicked the bucket when Moore & Eick took over. Too bad for his ass, too, cuz I love me some Naked Boomer in Jello-Bath. I shudder to think what he would have looked like in that tub.

  • Feb. 18, 2007, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Frodo in Sin City was fantastic!

    by Amy Chasing

    this is just some young guy naked on stage - holy nipples on Batman's suit, it's sooo controversial now all witch-fearing Christian groups will say Harry Potter promotes exposing yourself or some other such drivel.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 12:42 a.m. CST


    by occula

    colonel, you so funny! you mock my tender love for the BSG.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 2:09 a.m. CST

    "The play could consist of him walking on stage..."

    by Liberty Valance

    "...taking a crap and walking off again." Someone needs to cast Emma Watson in *that* play right now.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 4:37 a.m. CST


    by Kristian66

    Yeah, but she was a bit of a whore.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 6:18 a.m. CST

    messi (ha ha)

    by Kristian66

    Your use of the English language explains a lot.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 6:25 a.m. CST

    Ah, TheGhostWhoLurks

    by MPJedi2

    The minute you typed "But going from Harry Potter straight into playing a nude nutjob who gets his rocks off blinding horses???" you exposed the fact that you don't really know EQUUS at all, or have the faintest idea what the hell it's about. That and, as an actor I'm going to tell you that,"how about simply ACTING and letting your performance speak for itself" is exactly what he's doing. It's small-minded, uniformed people like yourself, who want to make the show into some sort of peep-show, who refuse to allow that to happen. Good Day, sir!

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 9:02 a.m. CST


    by Doctor_Sin

    I want Hermoine naked. Easy.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Last night's "Simpsons"

    by Anna Valerious

    Play-Doh Theater presents "Equus". So wrong, yet so very funny. XD

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Dumbledore dies?.... next you'll be telling me

    by crashbarbarian

    that michael bay is putting flames on optimus prime!

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST

    The History Boys

    by Barry Egan

    Richard Griffiths was great in this too. If people only know him as Uncle Vernon they will be surprised to find what a great actor he is.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Harry: Regarding The Spoilers

    by Barron34

    I have to say that a spoiler box on an article about the play Equus is no warning at all that the article will contain spoilers for the Harry Potter movies. The article should have been flagged as containing spoilers for the Potter films. *****For those who point out that the books with the information in question have been out for years: some of us are not fans of the books, but have followed the Potter movies. Not everyone has either the time or the inclination to read every book that is adapted for film. Myself, I have had a casual interest in the films, but have become more interested in the Potter stories since the Prisoner of Azkhaban film, which I liked more than the first two films. After seeing that film, my interest in the Potter stories has grown. In fact, I recently rewatched Azkhaban on DVD, and decided that I was warming more to the Harry Potter story so much that I might take the time to read the books. I am now less inclined to get into the books, and I am further annoyed that key plot elements of the upcoming movies have been revealed in an article about a stage play that has no relation to the Potter books and movies other than that Radcliffe is in the play. People who are more casual fans of the films and who have not read the books should not be dismissed, and spoilers for a major genre movie series should not be revealed in an unrelated article without specific notice that there are Harry Potter spoilers in that article. Readers had no reason to expect such spoilers in this article about Equus. Just my opinion.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 2:03 p.m. CST

    On Another Topic

    by Barron34

    On a lighter note, could we please get a new cartoon on the AICN home page? That New Year's cartoon of Harry dropping down the pole was funny back in January, but we are deep in February and heading into March. A new cartoon would be appreciated. Just a thought.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 2:32 p.m. CST

    everytime someone mentions the animation in the corner:

    by Amy Chasing

    it stays for another month - irrelevant or not, thems the rules.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Amy Chasing

    by Barron34

    Sorry. It is just tedious to see a New Year's Eve reference more than six weeks after New Year's.

  • Feb. 19, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST

    the corner-animation is like waiting for a lift..

    by Amy Chasing

    the more you press the button, the longer it takes to get to your floor. This is the only way to explain the logic of leaving a New Years message up on an updated-daily website well into February. <P> What's the bet if it get changed, it'll be the Harry-dressed-as-Santa-shot-up-HO-HO-HO one

  • Feb. 20, 2007, 8:23 a.m. CST


    by Fridge

    Snape kills Dumbledore. Sirius falls through a curtain and ceases to exist. The girl from the second movie is Jigsaw's apprentice. Darth Vader is Luuke's father. Padme dies in childbirth. Magneto loses his powers. Xavier isnt dead. The Joker killed Bruce's parents. Mufasa dies. The butler did it. Myers is Laurie's brother. Jesus dies. Jack dies, Rose lives. Neo and Trinity both die. Nicole Kidman, her husband, the kids, and the servents are already dead, the "others" are the living residents. Norman Bates dresses up as his mom to do all the killing. Pitt and Nortan are the same person. Willis is already dead. Amanda and Jigsaw both die. V dies. Samara gets trapped in the well. Bambi's mom dies. The kid is Clark's son. Luke arranged Julian's death and later kills Jasper, Kee delivers her baby, Theo dies before the ship arrives. They find Nemo. The Terminator dies in every movie.

  • Feb. 20, 2007, 11:12 a.m. CST

    OMG those are SPOILER boxes??

    by Eyegore

    I've been reading the site daily for years and never saw that. OBVIOUSLY Harry, they need to be redesigned, and also used less frequently as I see every article on the right side is in a spoiler box. I don't like to read spoilers. Now I'll be freaked about reading anything in the future if 75% or more of all articles has a spoiler box around them. Hercules has the best system. Invisotext Spoilers let you read the article and ignore the spoilers if you choose.

  • Feb. 20, 2007, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Rarely updated corner animations

    by Eyegore

    When I first started reading AICN they were updated almost daily. Definately at least twice a week. WTF happened? Why give up on it? Who exactly is asleep at the helm and need a kick in the ass for the past couple of years?

  • Feb. 20, 2007, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Talkbackers

    by Boxcutter

    I had a shit, shit, SHIT day. All this childishness, erudition and obscenity was just what I needed. Cheers.

  • March 22, 2007, 5:38 a.m. CST


    by HenryS

    "It's obvious that he doesn't have a well trained theatrical voice" Really? It's quite clear that he does have it! "the boy who couldn't act "?!!! It`s the silliest thihg I`ve ever heard! Ever since "David Copperfild" it has become absolutly clear that he is the best actor!