Is it just me, or does the fact that he's good at portraying a character that almost EVERYONE on this board hates actually count against him?

 

Not really, it's just the fact that the character has so little depth that a six year old shot with a tranquilizer could pull it off.

 

If that were the case, we'd hate Alan Rickman - which is ridiculous, as Alan Rickman is awesome.

 

Rupert Grint plays the roll well? I didn't notice. On the other hand, how hard is it to pretend to be a massive douchebag?

 

How can we know if Rupert Grint is good or not when he plays his part as he does? Sure, the character is as shallow as Miss Hilton but who knows, he may be a better actor behind that?

At least he is good enough for the part he plays, this is Harry Potter were speaking about, not some movie based on a real manuscript.

 

Uh... you know the movies are based on a series of books, right?

Or were you being sarcastic? Hard to tell.

 

Extremely hard, actually. You'll find that sidekicks, comedic relief, and foils usually have a much broader range, talent-wise, than your average lead character. Leads for major tv/movie productions are typically a certain look or a known box office/ratings draw.