Someone Please Explain to Daniel Radcliffe Why Harry Potter 7, Part 2 Wasn't Nominated for Best Picture

Anyone? "I don't think the Oscars like commercial films, or kids' films, unless they're directed by Martin Scorsese. I was watching Hugo the other day and going, 'Why is this nominated and we're not?' I was slightly miffed." [Radio Times via NY Post]


  • Radcliffe Sucks says:

    Because the main character in Hugo wasn't a terrible actor.

  • j'accuse! says:

    Because you touch yourself at night.

  • AS says:

    I actually totally agree with him on that. Hugo was just glorified nostalgia, as if we didn't already have enough of that last year. While I'm not a huge Potter fan, it was way better than Hugo.

    • KevyB says:

      Nailed it! Hugo wouldn't be ANYWHERE this awards season if it didn't have the Scorsese name attached.

  • Patrick Hallstein says:

    Good for you, Radcliffe. It is a an especially appropriate year for that complaint. In my opinion, the real truth is that we're all sensing that we're moving into a society where the entitled seem more and more almost by constitution aristocratic -- and those who might be included are shoring up all the credentials to ensure they get included, which includes gathering up as many complaints like yours as they can (they're going for broke, because they also this time sense little risk -- America wants a 99 % society; how otherwise to make Hunger Games feel real?). Your Harry Potter still felt more or less democratic -- everyone, not just your character, had a personality and drew our attention. Hugo is not just done by exquisite Scorcese, but tells us that a good kid, a REMARKABLE kid, is one who -- like a good page boy, I suppose -- opens way to lost elders and their library of acccomplishments for the recondite and established and truly noteworthy, to savor ... and of course --REALLY -- that's about all (yes, he tinkers -- but no real genius, that).

    • j'accuse! says:

      With all due respect, I think I like where I think you were going with this, but by the end of your comment I felt as though I'd been blindfolded, locked in the trunk of a car and driven to the desert and dropped by the side of the road where I just have to scratch my head and think, "How did we get here?"

  • ety3rd says:

    While the Harry Potter films are mostly enjoyable, they're not great or transcendent.

    That's why.

  • The Winchester says:

    Blame it on the Daldry.

  • Baco Noir says:

    I'm kinda democratic in all this. I think in the "Final 10 (or 9)" in Best Pic there's room for both commercial and art cinema. I enjoy both. Harry Potter 7/8 deserved a nomination because it fulfilled everything a great picture(s) should do. It was exciting, frequently moving, well acted, beautifully made, etc. So, Radcliffe is right. It did get jobbed. And to ETY3RD. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a great film, period. Not just a great HP film.

  • jimmy53 says:

    I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, but it's not exactly amazing acting, cinema, or film making in general. Hugo was a beautifully written story, with strong acting, and brilliant cinematography. Sorry Dan, Hugo was nominated because it's a better film and HP is simply great popcorn.

  • Allan says:

    He's right. The same can be said for War Horse.

  • Dimo says:

    It's the charm, stupid.

  • Stark says:

    It wasn´t nominated just for that awful, anticlimatic, with the worst make up and effects ever, and very, very bad directed "I don´t even remember how many years later" scene.

  • Spike says:

    Daniel there is one simple answer. Silent films are "Flavor of the Month"

    It's also because their current Mr Hollywood is a complete cunt called George Clooney

  • Robert says:

    How incredibly refreshing to finally have an actor speak his mind instead of mumble out the same tired rhetorical junk that virtually 100% of them do.

    We'd all respect you more if you had your own opinions instead of worried about how it would affect your next film.

    We don't care if you get a DUI or caught doing drugs; we care about good films, which seem to be in shortage these days, which is the only reason that can explain 11 Oscar nominations for a plotless, overacted and under directed steaming pile of crap like Hugo.

  • Hazim Haemoglobin says:

    I completely agree. In 5 years, I'll remember Harry Potter more fondly than Hugo, if I remember Hugo at all. Not that Hugo is a terrible movie.

  • Sherri says:

    Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
    Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we communicate?

  • Great information. Lucky me I discovered your blog by accident (stumbleupon).

    I have book-marked it for later!

  • I am not sure where you're getting your
    info, but good topic. I needs to spend some
    time learning much more or understanding more.

    Thanks for excellent info I was looking for this info for my mission.