just before Richard Harris died (the stories I could tell you about Richard... but Walter wouldn't let me)... I realised who best sums up my hatred of child actors...

Ron.

He has six expressions (all ham) and that little button face doesn't lend itself to subtlety.

He's far better now he's older but sums up why these early films were so bad yet the books were so great.

I'm fairly tolerant of the early films. There is an air of childish naivety and pure adventure about them which is somewhat endearing, though of course the later films, with improved acting skills and increasing darkness clearly have more merit.

To be fair, do real kids display much more than six expressions? I really don't know, as I don't know any kids and am too old to remember what it was like to be one. Indeed, there are those who would say I was born at the age of 40!

Having clear memories of my own childhood and having been around kids, both in family and work since, I think the child actors in Harry Potter were very natural, as far as the script would allow. We must also remember that the first book was written very much as a children's book, and the movie was made mainly for children. Each gets darker and more mature as the child fans grow up with them. Adults just have to be tolerant of that fact.

I actually think Rupert Grint is a better actor than Daniel Radcliffe (Harry). I find the latter lacks a little something, and at times I found him quite horribly wooden. I am sure JK Rowling did not create a dull almost lifeless main character, and I'm not entirely convinced Radcliffe does the character much justice. Many will disagree with me and point to the variety of stuff he's done since Potter, but I'll stick with my view. Trying to work out the number of facial expressions deployed by Radfcliffe as Potter... I think he has about three... blank, bland and smiley.