J.K. Rowling: La magie des mots

It's hard to fault a movie when its based on fact, and so very accurate at that. Having researched JK Rowling before watching this movie to verify the authenticity of this film, it was rather accurate in its presentation.

Poppy Montgomery was convincing as JK Rowling. Even if not based on fact, this is an interesting story. It is fast-paced and intriguing, and very inspirational - especially for aspiring writers! Even if you're not a writer, you have to admire JK for her determination and willpower against all odds. This is a delightful (TV) movie with a great message.

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.

A simple telling of the J K Rowling story propbably made for a US audience.

The accents are just weird and acting quite poor. Joanne Rowling does not have a "posh" accent, nor does she have the aussie twang the actress who plays keeps wavering between..

Ridiculous school uniform, nothing like most state schools would have in primary school and again at the state school she taught at.

We dont "graduate" from secondary school only university in the UK, so why the graduation cake etc. May have been a little celebration but no "graduation"

Mention of atorneys.instead of lawyers.

The magical scenes were pleasant but spoiled by the awful acting.

Reviews can be considered an interesting exercise for the ego. After all, what are we criticising? The film, or our reaction to it? How is it possible to be objective? Honesty first: I attempted to read, The Philosopher's Stone when it was released, but gave up after fifty pages. This is not to say it was poorly written, just that, at the time, I was not eleven. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the films and the story arc. Admiration and respect has to be given to anybody who has written seven novels. Much has been written about how she plagiarized, or a more pleasant word might be, poached, elements from other writers, but I am not concerned by these irrelevant rumours. What is important is she has brought happiness to millions, if not billions, of people. How many critics can die with that achievement on their lips? I'm also not concerned about the accuracy of this film. As far as I understand it, the major elements are there; the rise of a desperately poor mother (with circumstances whom most of us can sympathise) with a dream, to unparalleled success. Is that not enough? Is that not the quiddity of what this film is about? Therefore, you can tell that I enjoyed the snapshot of this woman's life. It was competently made and acted. Nothing jarred. However, what was important, was that it moved me. And at the end, to joyful tears. Isn't that the highest recommendation? Only one point deducted for not taking her story up to the present.

A dramatised account of the life of the woman who created Harry Potter, from her humble beginnings as an imaginative young girl and an awkward teenager, through the loss of her mother and becoming a mother herself, to how Harry Potter began.

Beautifully potrayed by Poppy Montgomery.

Can be watched and inspired by.

On Netflix.