Good acting? Well cast?
From the four movies we have seen so far (to be five, very shortly) I thought we could do a little summary and compare everyone's opinion of the HP cast's performance so far. It might have changed over the years - you might feel that someone has improved or lost their appeal for some reason or the other. I thought we could start with Emma Watson (merely to avoid starting with Dan Radcliffe all the time), stating our thoughts on her acting and how she matches the Hermione in our heads. I'll start.

Emma Watson - Hermione Granger

PS: When Emma was cast for Philosopher's Stone, I was thrilled. Obviously, the trio were still very young and I was glad that they'd found people for all three main characters who could actually act. Emma made me laugh a lot (which was partly due to the lines she was given, of course) and I thought she was extremely well cast, particularly concerning her looks. (Bushy hair, etc.) I would have liked if they had given her false overlarge front teeth (to be reduced in GoF) or something, but I am still not sure that is possible, so I was satisfied with what I had.

CoS: Emma did something to her hair and it was gruesome, canon-wise. Other people did something to the way Emma talked and I felt this gave her acting a little artificial twang, although I must say that I liked the consistency with which she played her part. The emphasis on being bossy... well, they did it and it works in some scenes, so I won't complain. I did feel that Emma was becoming less like the Hermione I had pictured, though.

PoA: When the trio started wearing their own clothes on set, I felt that a lot of Hermione was drained out of Emma. "Is this what my hair looks like from the back?" felt out of place and I had the general impression of watching the three main actors playing their cool selves instead of playing Harry, Ron, and Hermione, as they were supposed to.

GoF: This movie turned Hermione entirely into a Hollywood barbie doll. However, (and I don't know exactly how it came to pass) I felt that Emma's acting got a little more Hermione-like. Everything about the movie seemed a little more smooth and so did Emma. Hermione showed that she cared for Harry as she does in the books, seemed rather mature most of the time, and did some bickering with Ron as well. Although I can't get over the whole "Ronald" thing. It seems entirely wrong for some reason. Still, I was a little more pleased with Emma. The missing scene where she gets her teeth corrected in the book makes me cringe, though. Apart from the fact that I would have liked to see Snape putting his foot down, it always felt as though this was the point in Hermione's life when she starts showing an interest in her appearance. Before that, she was just Hermione, but at this, she sort of transforms into a young lady.
Fine, this sounds sappy, but... do you know what I mean? It's a crucial moment for her, which was left out of the movies. Perhaps because this step was sort of implied with the "hair from the back" scene in PoA.

That's all. I thought we could switch characters every now and then when everyone's had a chance to speak.

Great idea Crocky!

In my mind, Emma Watson has been one of the more 'problimatic' main actors in terms of her fitting my internal idea of the book character.

Crocky, I agree with you completely that Emma was absolutely perfect in the first film. She was spot on Hermione. I haven't watched the second film in so long though (for me, it's the weakest of the four so far) that I can't really remember how Emma came off in that one. I'll have to take another look at some point.

PoA and GoF are much fresher in my memory. Although I thought PoA was the better 'film' in the overall sense, I really had problems with the portrayal of Hermione in that film. More so than with the other actors, it felt like I was watching Emma 'portray' the role instead of feeling like I was watching Hermione. Too much of Emma bled into the role. Not to mention, PoA gave birth to Super-Hermione, the perfect, pink power-girl. (IMG:http://the-pensieve.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/quinn.gif)

And don't even get me started on how they gave Hermione some of Ron's best lines ("you'll have to kill me" for example). This was the film where Ron's role in the trio really started to take a dive. You almost get the feeling that H/Hr are the dynamic duo with funny sidekick Ron along for the ride. It's no wonder that non-readers of the books, including some high profile reviewers (Ebert, for example), think that Harry and Hermione are going to end up together romantically. The films really push the H/Hr dynamic to the extreme.

I have mixed thoughts about Emma in GoF. The pink power girrrrl was thankfully missing, but there was a definite element of Emma trying too hard in this one. I didn't notice it too much on first view, but in subsequent viewings Emma's eyebrow movements are enough to give you motion sickness. (IMG:http://the-pensieve.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

The other main problem which you've already pointed out Crocky, is that the whole 'transformation' of Hermione that played so well in the books, is basically lost in the movies. This is not Emma's fault. It's the fault of the film-makers starting with Cuaron. Emma is undeniably a beautiful young girl who is growing into a gorgeous young woman. I'm not sure how the film makers could have handled the teeth issue. But they definitely could have chosen to play down her looks, make her appear more 'frumpy', but they did not, imo.

Therefore, when it comes time for the Yule Ball transformation, there is very little to transform. Our perception of Hermione is that she's already very pretty. We basically just get to see what she looks like in a fancy dress with her hair up.

What I appreciated about GoF though is that with the toning down of Hermione, the trio dynamic returned. Ron and Hermione returned to being equally important in Harry's eyes.

I look forward to seeing how Watson has grown as an actor in OotP.

Hermione was supposed to get her hair straightened for the Yule Ball. STRAIGHTENED!!!!

Instead, it was more curly.

For this, I shall never forgive her.

Excellent points, Max. Perfect pink power-girl. LMAO! Exactly what I thought. The point of the trio's dynamic and interaction is quite valid. I never considered the matter from this angle, but you speak my mind there.

I was actually afraid that they'd play on the bookworm stereotype too much with Hermione, but that, thankfully, didn't happen too much. What I am wondering is - has Hollywood options other than making good girls pretty and bad girls/women look insane or ugly or both? *coughbellatrixlestrangecough*

The problem with Hermione for me is that the portrayal doesn't make clear very well that behind all the bossiness lies a deeply insecure girl who wants to be admired and liked by all, but who doesn't realise that her demeanour puts people off. Of course, there is also the fact that she seems to be in constant Yule Ball mode and that she gets all kinds of clever lines put into her mouth, taking the cake in the second movie where she knows what a mudblood is as though she had lived as a wizard her whole life, and even steals Dumbledore's line that fear of a name only increases the fear of the real thing. That's where mere spunk transforms into swaggering.

Let's not even go there. It's appalling to see how they've dealt with the subject of wizarding culture. The word "Mudblood" and other things you can only know (or care about) if you've grown up as part of the wizarding world is an entire area, which the makers of the movies haven't researched properly imo. Part of this is something, which still tends to annoy me whenever I watch the movies, by the way. Namely, the fact that Hermione, as well as others, keeps saying Voldemort's name as though there was nothing to it. I mean, if they had changed it on purpose... fine. Stupid but at least knowingly done. But they haven't because else the title "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" makes no sense. If some can speak the name and others can't or worse, if it depends on the day of the week if people speak the name or not, it looks like sloppiness. And I HEIGHT slopiness in movie-making.
Good point there, Jab.

That was actually in the book, too. Annoyed me greatly.

Hermione didn't know what it was in the book, though, right? It was Ron who had to explain it. Didn't she say something like "I don't know what it means, but I could tell it was really bad." That was one of the most annoying things and I will scream it until I die: STEVE KLOVES SUCKED CAUSE HE STOLE WHAT LITTLE THUNDER RON HAD AND GAVE IT TO HERMIONE.

Excellent points, Jabs and Crocky.

That sounds right. This was in Hagrid's hut as they waited for Ron to regurgitate all his slugs.

Exactly. I must say, I wouldn't have minded her knowing about it, but it is a long way from knowing that something is theoretically an insult to actually crying about it because it makes you feel bad. Just think what you'd say if someone called you mudblood now. You'd know what it means, but you'd probably not react as strongly to is as to any insult you're more acquainted with, none of which I can use as an example here, of course.

I'll change the character/actor now, so that we can have more splendid analyises.

Michael Gambon/Richard Harris - Albus Dumbledore

My main beefs with the movie-portrayals of Dumbledore:

1. When I see Harris, I see Dumbledore-looking-over-the-Pensieve-in-Book-4 oldness throughout. Sadly, it really couldn't be helped, for Harris was pretty sick, if I remember correctly, at least during the filming of CoS. The almost pristine deified look that Harris somewhat gave at times worked pretty well, at least for the first two books, when Harry looks up to him with almost reverence, but his on-the-verge-of-dying persona at times did not sit well with me. Oh well...

2. I think the major problem with Gambon-as-Dumbledore is his ANGRY-CAPSLOCK reaction after Harry puts his name in the Goblet. Not him at all. His aura in the third book felt almost spot-on, but he seemed not very personable, especially in the fourth movie: he was hardly very chummy with Harry in movie 3 or 4, which will make it curious how they handle Dumbledore's aloofness in #5.

I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with Albus-in-movie-form. He is my favourite HP character.

Agreed. Gambon's best line easily was the, "Did what?", he gave Harry and Hermione when they returned from their time-travelling, telling him they "did it" in the third movie.

Okay, here's my two cents:

Richard Harris
When I saw PS for the first time, I was overall extremely impressed with the casting. The only character I really didn't like was Dumbledore, which might be due to the same reasons Beri mentioned. Dumbledore looked extremely weak already and all his good lines had been cut. I looked for the infamous "twinkle" in vain because to me Harris used to be much, much better at playing "hard" men (like the Roman emperor in Gladiator) than "soft yet resolute" ones like Dumbledore. I was watching LotR and McKellen as Gandalf and grew deeply annoyed at what an excellent Dumbledore this man would have been and why no one even thought about casting someone comparable for the role instead of Harris.
It is not the actor's fault, of course, that he was ill and dying during CoS. Imo, a little thought on the part of the producers would have told them not to cast a 70+ man for a role that would likely need filling for the next seven years or more.

Michael Gambon
When I saw Gambon as Dumbledore for the first time, I was quite pleased with his performance, purely because there was so much more life in it than in Harris's. The lines they gave Dumbledore during PoA, though, made him appear as though he was on drugs 90% of the time (with the possible exception of "Did what?", which I agree was very much in character). I was equally shocked with the evil Dumbledore twin Gambon played in GoF and I can't think of a reason why bearded men always find it so hard to articulate clearly. I'll be leaving my final judgement for after OotP (and possibly HBP) though, as that is where the part of Dumbledore is going to get particularly tricky to perform. So far, I think, both actors had easy game and blew it completely (in co-work with the producers/screenwriters).

Because that's distinguished. Can't be a wizard-and-wizened-mentor-figure and have a beard and NOT mumble into it. That would be like not wearing pointy hats.

Richard Harris:
I think most of this has been said. He didn't seem to have any presence and seemed to fade right into the often very colourful background. Of course that was due to him being ill, but- well. What Crocky said. Although maybe they could not know when they made the first movie that there were really going to be more than one? Which would be incredibly short-sighted, but who knows.

Michael Gambon
I second Crockys impression that he was on drugs throughout the movie. He was much, much better than Richard Harris, though - which was, admittedly, not hard in my view. I did not like his excessive mood swings, but I loved the occasional dottiness ("What are you doing here, Ms Granger?") which worked well for me. What bothered me a little was his physicality, which did somehow not really fit Dumbledore, but also does not go well with his role as a Headmaster. We are constantly being told over and over again to Never. Touch. A Student., and he does it quite a lot. Of course, that as a contrast to an absent Dumbledore might work. Although if that's what they planned (haha! Look! I think they plan! Silly me.), I don't see what would be negative about it, exactly.

Really? Me too! And Filch, of course, one that's really grown on me... *grin*

Concerning the actors for Dumbledore...

When I saw the first and second movies, I was pretty young so I lived in a little secure bubble that said that every character was cast perfectly. Now I know that is far from true, but I did become quite attached to the traditional Dumbledore. When he passed on (which I believe I cried over) I basically put on my boxing gloves and searched for every flaw in the new Dumbly to critique on. What I found was that his clothing style was too hippie, his voice wasn't soft enough, and the wildly out-of-character reaction in GoF. Now I have to give the guy credit, but I still prefer Harris. Still, I only saw the movies once or twice each, and I wouldn't want to resee them - compared to the books, they're pitiful. So, yeah, that's my two cents. Remember the bubble of security!