Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an entertaining, if somewhat overly long film. It’s obvious that sophomore Potter director David Yates clearly has a much better handle on the material this time around, resulting in a film that, visually, is quite beautiful. But Half-Blood Prince has some issues, too. It really does seem to be a tale of two movies: the first, a quirky, witty and lighthearted romantic comedy; the other a dark, ominous, deadly tale of the growing power and influence of the forces of darkness. And regardless of fan objections over what was or wasn’t included from the book, the fact that the film is unable to fully meld its two most prominent elements (romance and darkness) together is its greatest flaw.

One of the more controversial decisions in the Half-Blood Prince was to place such a strong emphasis on the teenage romances that befuddle our three heroes. Considering that Half-Blood Prince is based on the “life at Hogwarts” structure that is familiar to fans of the books and early films, it makes sense to include some of these elements. But without question, the romance stories enjoy a very prominent place in the film. And that could be seen as a detriment. In truth, though, the film avoided the cheap melodrama and, instead, used the romance angle for some genuinely funny, off-beat, and even witty humor. This is to the benefit of the movie. But what’s missing is any tangible connection between the romance and the rest of the film’s more sinister developments.

It’s obvious that the romance was meant to balance the darker elements of Half-Blood Prince, but a good story finds a clear way of connecting the two – either thematically or through the characters themselves. At best we get the juxtaposition of the trio with Malfoy – of their juvenile frivolity with his more mature struggle. But the film needed more of a connection than that. If, for example, the whole “relationships” main plot had been about finding true friends/true loves and learning to never put living life aside, no matter how dark the circumstances might be, then not only would it have found a way to mesh the romance elements with the main story, it would have created a story which meant something beyond simply the exploits of who is snogging who.

It’s unfortunate because the uneven tenor of the film causes some issues with pacing, dragging out the film a bit longer than was entirely necessary, even subverting some of its more important narrative moments. The mystery of Draco’s mission, for example, is wonderfully portrayed, using a minimum of dialogue. The handful of scenes watching Draco confront a vanishing cabinet, and hoping beyond hope to make it work are wonderfully done, creating deeply visceral moments. Even the performance from Malfoy (Tom Felton) is quietly powerful. And yet, the whole mystery is simply explained away in a bit of rather blatant exposition in a conversation between Harry and George Weasley.

Draco’s story, too, is a missed opportunity. The parallels between Malfoy’s descent into depravity and evil and that of Voldemort are implied, but never fully evolved in the film. Much of Harry’s year at Hogwarts is spent trying to ferret out information about Voldemort’s past from the new Potions Master, Horace Slughorn (effectively portrayed by Jim Broadbent). On two separate occasions, Harry has conversations about Tom Riddle’s (aka Voldemort) life as a student at Hogwarts. Slughorn even says, at one point, “if there was a monster then, it was buried deep within.” On both occasions, one with Slughorn and the other with Dumbledore, there is the implicit notion that the rise of Voldemort was not, necessarily inevitable. The implication is that Draco Malfoy need not follow the same path into evil. But once more, this idea is, at best, merely hinted at, rather than being fully developed.

All of which is to say that David Yates has created a good film, but one that falls short of being truly exceptional. Aesthetically, the film is exquisitely presented. The look and feel of everything – from the shots of Hogwarts to opening attack of the Death Eaters to riveting confrontation with the Inferi – evokes the ominous mood of the film’s darker elements. Even specific shots, like that of Snape facing Harry across Malfoy’s bleeding body are played for a wonderfully ethereal quality. Even the music of the film is a noticeable improvement. Nicholas Hooper has created a soundtrack that is just as dark and whimsical as the film itself. It is easily the most diverse and imaginative since John Williams composed the score for The Prisoner of Azkaban. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Yates was trying to emulate Alfonso Cuaron (the director of Prisoner of Azkaban. And Yates got many of the visuals right. But he lacked the overall coherent thematic and narrative command Cuaron had in Azkaban.

Another area in which Half-Blood Prince deserves some credit is in the performances of the cast. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) have all matured nicely as actors and their performances, particularly that of Radcliffe, are much more nuanced and subtle than we have seen in any of the other Potter films. Beyond that, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is, finally, portrayed as the serene-yet-powerful wizard seen in the first three films. In fact, this may be Gambon’s best turn as Dumbledore who, it would seem, was channeling his inner-Gandalf for a few scenes. Snape (Alan Rickman) continues to impress with his icily reptilian delivery. But the biggest, and most interesting, surprise of the film comes from a sixteen year-old Tom Riddle (Frank Dillane). It’s a shockingly evil portrayal.

Overall Grade: B-

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will likely end up being one of the more highly regarded Potter movies. Without question, there is a clear improvement upon its predecessors. And director David Yates has crafted a film that has a beautiful aesthetic. The scene in which Dumbledore and Harry confront the Inferi is triumphant in its execution. And yet, in the end, the film will likely be most remembered for what it didn’t do. The book portrays a final battle in Hogwarts that is, sadly, missing from the movie. But more importantly, the terrible emotions of the final scenes are anti-climactic. The moment of tragedy is almost perfunctory to the film. Without having tied together all of the various plot threads – those of love and death – Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ends up being an entertaining, if slightly hollow installment.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a significant step backward for the Harry Potter franchise. In truth, the movie isn’t a failure, but it’s all style, with very little substance. And, too, the creative liberties taken with this particular film severely undermine the story’s main thematic elements – of people having to work together in spite of any differences they may have. Instead, we’re treated to nothing more than a simple Hollywood blockbuster formula, playing up empty action and VFX sequences at the expense of the heart and depth of the characters and their interrelationships.

One of the main issues with the film, from a narrative standpoint, is its lack of conflict (inner or outer) throughout much of the story. Indeed, the film seems set up to do little more than move Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) from one Triwizard Tournament even to another. Oh sure, we see his first kiss, his spat with Ron, and so forth. But these are merely window dressing when compared to the underlying theme of unity.

The tournament events themselves are altered, playing more for action set pieces than for their challenges to Harry’s character. The film gives a higher priority to a pointless chase sequence involving a dragon (one that never took place in the book) over Harry’s inner strength at facing the unknown. The same goes for the gillyweed which is given to Harry as a plot device, rather than demonstrating his growing lack of focus or determination. Furthermore, the condensation of the Crouch storyline – to include the son in the opening scene, simply doesn’t work.

The film really only gains momentum after Cedric and Harry both grab hold of the Triwizard Cup and are transported to the graveyard in which Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) will soon arise. These sequences do establish an immediate sense of tension and suspense, but are unable to conjure up the horribly ominous dread that the book was able to convey. And even worse, when Harry does have his confrontation with Voldemort, the dueling wands is both anticlimactic and cringeworthy. Put simply, the closeup camera on Harry’s face during the duel is not kind at all. It’s neither heroic nor triumphant. Just embarrassing.

The film’s worst mistake, however, is saved for the very end. The crowning moment of the book was when, after Cornelius Fudge refuses to accept Harry’s story that Voldemort has returned, Dumbledore reconvenes the Order of the Phoenix right there in the hospital wing. It’s that moment, especially when Severus Snape accepts Dumbledore’s request, that seals the theme of unity. And it is completely missing from the film.

Inexcusable.

And that’s nothing compared to the acting gaffes of Rita Skeeter and Dumbledore. In fact, Dumbledore’s performance is easily the worst to date, with actor Michael Gambon over emoting at every step making Dumbledore to seem more like an out of control lunatic, rather than the calm, introspective professor shown in the books.

And finally …

The music. The Goblet of Fire is the first Harry Potter film to be scored without John Williams. Of course, Patrick Doyle makes liberal use of Williams’ themes (particularly Hedwig’s Theme), but the rest of the score is nondescript at best, and amateurish at worst.

Overall Grade: C-

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is easily the worst film of the first four installments of the Harry Potter series. That the franchise takes another step backward in Order of the Phoenix seems inexplicable. And yet, the seeds for its demise are sown here – with a deliberate focus on style rather than substance.

Right from the start you can see the difference between Azkaban and the first two Potter films. Whereas The Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets focused on the wonder and majesty of the magical world, The Prisoner of Azkaban engulfs itself in the grit and potential darkness of that same world. Even composer John Williams gets into the spirit, creating a musical score that sounds as though it were lifted from the Dark Ages.

Harry Potter, befitting of a teen, embarks on his third adventure with far more angst and rebelliousness than ever before. His journey is one of self-discovery — and this time, he must confront the fear within himself. His year at Hogwarts is riddled with creatures of darkness: Dementors, the Grim, and the convict Sirius Black. As Harry struggles to confront each of these fears, he gains a greater sense of himself — and his own ties to his parents. Although Harry succeeds not with anger, but with joy, that success is tempered with an ominous omen for the future. Fans of the books will appreciate how this movie foreshadows future events.

Undoubtedly this is the most “adult” of the Potter films. Director Alfonso Cuaron creates a world within Hogwarts that is equally wondrous and ominous. There is an edge to the look of this film that brings the characters that much closer to reality. The three main stars, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have matured into their roles and are quite convincing. Newcomers Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Professor Lupin), Emma Thompson (Professor Trelawney), and Michael Gambon (Professor Dumbledore), are equally compelling. The pacing and script are true to the spirit of the novel and hold the interest of the audience for the full 140 minutes of action and adventure; and along with the effects and musical score make this Potter film the best yet.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is one of John Williams‘ most dynamic and varied soundtracks of the past ten years. Director Alfonso Cuaron has given Williams a rich tapestry on which to create a truly emotional, thrilling, and symbolic musical score. The score begins with the signature Hewdig’s Theme - but it is a more subdued variation on the bombast present in the first two scores. The murkier tone is a herald of what is to come: a soundtrack filled with the wonder, mystery and dark undercurrents of the wizarding world. For fans of musical soundtracks, this offering is a must have.

Azkaban is successful mix of moody tones and themes touched with a flair of the Renaissance. Highlights include: The Knight Bus – a big band offering; Double Trouble – a chorus based on Shakespeare’s Macbeth; A Window To The Past – a tender woodwind theme; Hagrid the Professor – a Renaissance theme; and The Patronus Light - an ethereal choral theme.

Overall Grade: A

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is, without question, the best Potter film of the series.  It’s approach, aesthetic, interpretation, direction, acting and score are all top-notch.  Quite simply, there’s nothing more well-crafted in the Potter movie franchise than this effort from Alfonso Cuaron.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets isn’t quite as good as the first movie. There are a number of fantastic additions – such as Kenneth Branagh as the overly colorful Professor Gilderoy Lockhart and Jason Isaacs as the nefarious Lucius Malfoy. The plot is darker and more complex. And the three main heroes of Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) are all older. The ingredients existed for a superior film. Unfortunately, the pacing, some unnecessarily gratuitous sequences, and a dropoff in acting contribute to the film’s lesser quality, especially when compared to the first film.

That isn’t to say that Chamber of Secrets is a terrible film, certainly it’s very enjoyable, especially for Potter fans, but there are enough issues and criticisms which work against its favor. The issues are noticeable almost immediately. The film opens once again with Harry living with his Aunt and Uncle Dursley in what should have been a fairly amusing scene. But the introduction of Dobby (a poorly rendered CGI character) is awkward and Radcliffe’s acting is exceptionally amateurish. The result is a cringeworthy sequence – and not in the way intended by the scene.

Another example of the film’s shortcomings is the car-flying sequence in which Harry and Ron, after missing the Hogwarts Express, fly to school in Arthur Weasley’s enchanted car. The extended sequence, complete with Harry almost falling out of the car, is pointless and ridiculous and adds nothing other than a gratuitous action-set piece. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, the sequence itself is just poorly executed.

I will say this, however: of the three main characters, Ron by far fares the best. His facial expressions are almost always spot on and convey a comedic and acting acumen that many adults find difficult to match. If not for him, the shortcomings of Harry and even Hermione (who is herself not as good as the previous film) would drag this film down much further than it already is.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot of good here. The sequence at The Burrow (the Weasley family home) is particularly well-done. Gilderoy Lockhart, as a character, is amusing and revolting (in a good way) and the more sinister story does a lot to carry the film. Likewise, the mystery and revelation of Tom Riddle’s identity is well worth the price of admission.

But the climactic basilisk scene just feels a bit too much like a by-the-numbers Hollywood action sequence.  Sure the basilisk is impressive, and sure the confrontation with Tom Riddle is sinister.  But it just isn’t executed particularly well.

And that really is the biggest issue with Chamber of Secrets. Its adherence to Hollywood formula as well as its rigid approach to translating the book to film result in a movie that just doesn’t feel as genuine, or as magical, as the original.

Overall Grade: B-

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a worthy film for the Potter franchise. But it does little more than move the story forward – doing so without any real authenticity, and without adding anything really fresh or new to the Potter experience, even when you factor in Lockhart and Lucius. Even John Williams’ score is much less memorable, being perhaps his most uninspired work in recent memory, including Attack of the Clones.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is an impeccable film. From start to finish it accomplishes its task with hardly any flaws – a remarkable achievement for a movie that features children as its main characters. But in truth, the actors who portray the film’s three main characters handle their tasks with aplomb. The narrative is tightly focused, conveying not only the wonder of the magical world, but also its darker, more dangerous elements. As for the story, it plays upon some common ideas, but does so within a world that feels fresh, new, and wholly captivating. Who wouldn’t, at eleven years old, have wanted to find out that they were a wizard (or a witch)? What would it be like to discover that you were suddenly famous? And what if your past were to catch up with you?

This movie tells the story of how Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) was orphaned as a young baby by the ruthless wizard Lord Voldemort, grew up in his Aunt and Uncle’s oppressive home and suddenly discovered that he was indeed a wizard, destined to head off to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. It tells the story of how Harry found out about his past, made new friends in Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), made new enemies in Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and learned about a whole new world. And it is in capturing the “magic” of the wizarding world that The Sorcerer’s Stone excels. Through Harry’s eyes, we see the secrets of this world revealed and along with him, we gasp in wonder and amazement at the things we see.

A big part of portraying the wonder and amazement of the magical world are the visual effects which are used exceptionally well, being interwoven almost seamlessly into the film. There are a couple of glaring moments (the mountain troll and some shots during the Quidditch match) but for the most part, this film demonstrates how effective CGI can be when it is used economically and intelligently. Put simply: It’s a beautiful film, from a visual standpoint, complementing the story quite well. And just as importantly is the musical score from none other than John Williams. Along with the visuals, his score is expertly adept in conveying wonder and magic and amazement. Most prominent is “Hedwig’s Theme” (used for the main title) but Williams also weaves a number of other themes and cues a bit like he’s casting spells himself. The result is a score that perfectly matches the movie.

And surprisingly, all of these actors – especially Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson – are remarkably successful in giving an emotive, nuanced performance. Put simply , they aren’t a detriment to the film – and for child actors, that’s a big accomplishment. Joining them, and providing the necessary gravitas and maturity to elevate the film are Ronnie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid, Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore, Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Each actor is accomplished in his or her own right, but their performances here are absolutely pitch-perfect, flawlessly and accurately portraying the vivid book characters. Rickman’s Snape is a highlight, but make no mistake, they all do an exceptional job – as do even the minor characters from Oliver Wood of the Quidditch team to the Durselys. Kudos to the casting department.

And what of its adaptation? The biggest pitfall to adapting a book for film is the difficulty in translating the various elements to the big screen. Include too many elements and the film can become plodding and overly detailed. Include too few, and the film risks losing the essence of the book. In The Sorcerer’s Stone, the film manages to stay true to the book without becoming overly detailed. A big help was the casting – which made the characters look exactly like Ms. Rowling’s descriptions. The set and artistic design also helped. But the script and the actors really helped the film adhere to the wonderful world of Hogwarts.

Overall Grade: A

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is a fantastic film, a real classic. The children fare much better than one might expect. The story is engaging. And thanks to the music, the cast, the visual effects and the design, the story is told with a great deal of craft.

The trailer for the upcoming film Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince debuted today, July 29, at 9PM.  I’ve embedded this post with the trailer itself.  Also, a few pictures have been released.  The two most prominent ones feature a young Tom Riddle and Dumbledore fighting off Inferi.  The trailer and pictures are below:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is, just maybe, a slight improvement over The Goblet of Fire. But not by much. There are enough poignant scenes, however, that do make the difference.

Because really, the big difference between the two films is that one (Phoenix) had an idea about what it wanted to be, whereas the other (Goblet) had little purpose. Order of the Phoenix, I think, is about fighting back against Wrong – no matter what its shape or form may be. I say “I think” because the film does a rather ineffective job of driving home that point. On the whole, though, Phoenix is sloppy, unfocused and flawed.

Essentially, this movie is about the calm before the storm. Voldemort, having been resurrected in Goblet, is biding his time, gathering forces and strength for his allies while sowing weakness and division amongst his enemies.

That Voldemort is able to carry out this plan is the result of paranoid, ineffective, cowardly, and selfish leadership. Cornelius Fudge, afraid of what Voldemort’s return would mean, afraid of losing his grip on power, lashes out only at what he can see: Dumbledore and Harry Potter. He uses every resource available to him to discredit the two and, in so doing, creates deep divisions within the wizarding world.

Against the backdrop of oppression and propaganda, Harry faces Dementors on the streets near his Aunt and Uncle’s home. The scene is notable for the decision to alter the design of the Dementors from what they appeared as in Prisoner of Azkaban. I can understand needing to alter aspects of Rowling’s novel to fight the constraints of the cinema format, but to change an already establish design? For what purpose? It was superfluous.

But that is representative of the film. A great deal of energy is spent on superfluous changes, and less so on substantive scenes. Take for example the exceptional sleaze injected into the Durselys. Or the time Harry and the Order spent flying from the Dursley house to Grimmauld Place – or the flight from the Forbidden Forest to the Ministry of Magic. Not only were both flights gratuitous in their depiction of nighttime London, but the music, especially with respect to the latter flight, mirrors this unnecessary extravagance. In that scene, Sirius is in perceived danger, and yet the music is almost celebratory.

And what’s with not having a single mention of Quidditch? I mean, I realize that when converting a book the size of Phoenix into a film, you need to sacrifice certain elements. And, truth be told, Quidditch wasn’t a major factor in the main story. But for it to be completely ignored, as if it doesn’t exist? Not even a passing line, or visual cue?

The rest of the film is an embodiment of these problems. Professor Umbridge is a whimsically off-color character, but she’s so comical that it is difficult to take her, or her actions, seriously. Dumbledore’s performance is at least a bit more restrained than it was in Goblet, but he isn’t exactly a shining influence in the film either. His final duel with Voldemort may be a visual effects feast, but the performances of the actors – both Dumbledore and Voldemort – eviscerate any real drama from the sequence.

In fact, in terms of visual effects at least, the duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore is trumped by the battle between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix. Visually, the battle is stunning. But not even this sequence is spared of its share of problems. The issue at hand is one of pacing. The battle is so revved up that it’s impossible to build any sense of danger or tension. And so when Sirius falls through the veil, the moment is robbed of a great deal of its emotional impact.

It’s a shame because the episode’s finest moment came when Sirius and Harry shared a brief conversation in the shadow of the Black Family Tree at Grimmauld Place. In this conversation, Sirius reassures an uncertain Harry about his inner “goodness” – and that it is our choices which determine who we are: good or evil. It’s a very good scene, full of profound meaning. But everything else around it is tripe.

Overall Grade: C-

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a film that is really quite a mess. It incoherently makes the wrong kinds of omissions and alterations, overplays its hand too often in terms of silly extravagances and is otherwise poorly constructed. Aside from one brief conversation between Harry and Sirius, characterizations are bypassed in favor of caricatures – Harry as the “out of control teen,” for example.

The LA Times is reporting that, much like Voldemort’s soul, the final Harry Potter film, The Deathly Hallows, will be split in half:

“I think it’s the only way you can do it, without cutting out a huge portion of the book,” Daniel Radcliffe said. “There have been compartmentalized subplots in the other books that have made them easier to cut — although those cuts were still to the horror of some fans — but the seventh book doesn’t really have any subplots. It’s one driving, pounding story from the word go.”

Alan Horn, president and chief operating officer of Warner Bros. Entertainment, said Wednesday that “it would have been a disservice” to downsize “Deathly Hallows” into one film. “This way, we have an extra hour and a half, at least, to celebrate what this franchise has been and do justice to all the words and ideas that Jo has put in the amazing story,” Horn said. “This is the end of the story too. We want to celebrate it. We want to give a full meal.”

The two-part finale will be filmed back-to-back. Part I is scheduled to be released in November 2010, with Part II scheduled for a Mary 2011 release. David Yates, director of the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix film will also helm the Book 7 films.

I’m guessing that news of The Hobbit being split into two films emboldened Warner Brothers. On a technical level, I’m curious about where they will end Part I — guess I’ll have to go back and re-read the book. Personally, the worst bit of news about this is the fact that Yates is scheduled to film Book 7. I thought Order of the Phoenix was a mess (full review coming soon), so I don’t very high expectations. Perhaps The Half-Blood Prince, which is also being directed by Yates (and is currently in production), will change my opinion of him. We’ll see …

And actually, this new revelation merely underscores a bigger problem with Rowling’s saga: With Book 7, she dropped the ball, big time. Remember the debacle that was the Epilogue? Those Deathly Hallows that came out of nowhere? The buildup, and perfunctory dismissal of the importance of the Horcruxes? Rowling rushed Book 7 into publication and has been, ever since, trying to fix her mistakes — after the fact.

But let’s focus on Dumbledore. For starters, Rowling says that Dumbledore’s infatuation with Grindewald was “a key part of the story” (1). Really? Then if that was so important, why didn’t the intrepid Ms. Rowling make the point a bit more clear?

Oh, sure, she has Dumbledore tell Harry, “Grindewald. You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me” (2), but that was all. That was it. If the moment was that much of a key to Dumbledore’s character, Rowling certainly didn’t make a very determined effort, did she? And is Rowling really saying that if you are inflamed by the ideas of a member of the same sex, that is supposed to imply homosexuality?

And now she is fighting some sort of rear guard action (pun intended?) by re-emphasizing a supposedly major plot point – a point she failed to make when she wrote the book. And if it wasn’t important enough to include in the story, why bother saying anything about it now? The fact is, Rowling made a huge, glaring error.

In her defense, Rowling says, “It is what it is. He’s my character and as my character I have my right to know what I know about him and say what I say about him.”

Wrong.

Or at least not entirely true.

As readers, we’re free to infer whatever we wish about Dumbledore’s character, based on what Rowling has put in print. And as a matter of fact, that is a major part of being a reader: the ability to use our own life experiences, along with the clues left by the author, to fill in the gaps and make the story personal – to make it ours. If an author fails to leave enough clues for us to infer her intentions for Dumbledore’s sexuality, then fault lies not with the reader, but with the Rowling. Telling us now that Dumbledore is gay removes an important, and essential, part of the relationship between author and reader – after publication, readers take ownership of the story by using their own life experiences, combined with the author’s words, to bring the story to life.

Dumbledore remains the intellectual property of Rowling in the sense that we can’t use the character to make money. But that is where her ownership of the character ends. By putting Dumbledore into print, she has given her character to millions of fans around the world – fans who take ownership of the characters for themselves. That’s how author-reader relationships work. That’s how books become successful. That’s how Rowling’s readers made her into multi-million dollar force of business and entertainment.

So for Rowling to now step out there and tell her fans what they can and cannot think of a character is entirely disingenuous. It’s a breach of contract. And it’s representative of Rowling’s failures.

(1) http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/arts/web_exclusive_jk_rowling.html

(2) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 716