kateruggles-114-54 I can only concur with the comments made previously about the glaring misrepresentations of British life and culture in this film. I appreciate that biopics are an interpretation of a person's life, but while that person is still alive some efforts should at least be made to show their nation's culture with some semblance of authenticity. In the scene in secondary school Jo calls her teacher 'professor'. I am only 2 years younger than Jo Rowling and teachers were never called that, they were either 'sir' or 'miss' or called by their full surname with appropriate title, e.g. 'Dr/Mr/Mrs/Ms So-and-so'. The benefits office (benefits, not 'assistance') in the film was unfeasibly clean and tidy, I was a single mother at about the same time and dole (benefits) offices were always filthy, depressing places devoid of hope, and littered with cigarette butts and stinking of smoke, BO and despair. And the benefits officers never dressed like the Queen as the one in this film did. And your benefits book came in the post, it was not just miraculously handed over to you (although I appreciate that this would be done in the film for efficiency of time). But the biggest and most epic of fails was the line uttered by Jo's father when she failed to get into Oxford University and he said it was because she went to a public school. That would be STATE school. A public school in the UK is a fee-paying independent school, over 50% of students at Oxford and Cambridge universities attended public school, they are considered the privileged elite, not what Jo's dad was referring to which is the free public- funded schools paid for by taxation which something like 93% of British children attend. Aside from all that, it was a dreadful film. All the foreshadowing was really obvious and patronising. If you're going to make a film about a living person pay more attention to the cultural specificities. I'd gladly be a consultant in these matters. Kate the celluloid pedant xx

SnoopyStyle This is a Lifetime docudrama of JK Rowland's life leading up to the big success of Harry Potter. Is it factual? I can't say. Chances are they took liberties left, right and center. Although there is value to portray her life as a fable that inspired her to the world of Harry Potter. The big events are probably correct, but the little things like the cart on the train is probably added. That is not necessarily dishonest. It is quite expected.The story makes poetic sense. And Poppy Montgomery is quite fitting as Rowland. She's probably too pretty to play the part. But she gets the character in the right space. The production value is limited. They're shooting British Columbia for Britain. Obviously it's not the same. And you can definitely tell.

neptunegalaxy I loved Poppy Montgomery acting, but I think they got J.K's personality all wrong. Any fan of J.K.Rowling that ever read some of her interviews, watch documentaries, maybe read a biography or at least bothered to know more about her besides the single-penniless-mother-writer slogan that came attached to her name would realize that she is not quiet like that.Sure, they got her hair right, the sets, the atmosphere was great, but regarding other things (her personality, her reaction to things MOSTLY) I believe they just came up with. Like, they would look into a certain situation that we know for a fact that happen and just wonder what she would have done, instead of what she did, and by doing that they changed her personality completely. Its entertaining, but its not biographical.For example, she wasn't at all somebody that would go around screaming I WANT TO BE A WRITER for everyone everywhere, she said many times she never felt like she could tell someone that. I don't remember much about the movie but I remember that at one point she screams with one of her teachers for some random reason... Every fan knows J.K.Rowling was an observer person, quiet as a kid and melancholic as a teenager, listening to The Smiths, always with her head in books, an eccentric person, with hysterical laughs and fun but also very introspective, had a serious depression after she came back from Portugal, etcetera. Its part of the common knowledge that fans have of her, and their J.K.Rowling is not like that at all.

thompson-62 This film is so lazy, the research is 100% Wikipedia and is laugh out loud funny for its inaccurate portrayal of Rowling's village (Tutshill), the School and, best of all - the utterly weird thing about the candy trolley on the train.....a hurricane of laughter that one.If you are going to watch a film, try one that has been researched by adults and not 4th grade students (maybe that is too generous), employ researchers that go a little beyond the www, maybe actually take a trip to the places they portray, maybe interview a few people.Don't waste your time with this film, just read Rowling's entry on Wikipedia....its about as insightful as the film.Errors - Her school is presented as an old manor house - in fact its a modern purpose built school. - The School is a high achieving school with several students a year going on to Oxford or Cambridge, and Rowling herself went on to study at a good University - hardly the trash can she describes. - Trains in the UK do not - never have - and never will have sweet trolleys....with or without tripe sweets (what?).and they are the only ones I know about..........what a waste of time and money.