Possible Spoilers: "Magic Beyond Words" tells the story of J.k. Rowling's life leading to the Harry Potter novels. The overall presentation is nice, giving us some insight on Rowling's life. However, there are many inaccuracies and clichés that makes some of the research questionable. The inaccuracies include incorrect portrayals of many of the settings in the movie like Wyedean School and London itself, some cultural mistakes like having sweet trolleys on English trains, and many more. The clichés include over dramatic portrayals of some life events like her time with her first husband, and some usual clichés like when she says "Do you think we'll ever see Harry Potter in that window display? Not bloody likely". On the other hand, it Poppy Montgomery gives a very charming performance as J.k. Rowling and the film has a rather nice atmosphere when giving telling it's story. In conclusion, it feels like a quick scroll through Wikipedia, giving the main build of Rowling's life but having some frustrating inaccuracies and leaving some crucial parts out like Rowing's dealings with depression. If you want to learn a bit about Rowling's life and can deal with some inaccuracies and clichés then watch this at your own risk, if you don't like inaccuracies or clichés then maybe keep on looking.
Add a Review
-
SnoopyStyle5 September 2013This 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. -
mayurpanchamia9426 March 2021A 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. -
paulclaassen12 August 2020It'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. -
shilpiagrawal55529 January 2022It's a nice one time watch. Nothing gripping / dramatic / greatest. Just a simple story trying to capture JK Rowling's initial few years and struggles - her losing her mom, getting married, having a daughter, struggling with money. Kind of inspiring, for sure. The movie just didn't move me a lot maybe except the relationship with her mother part. I loved how they depicted her relationship with her mom. Rest were kind of flaky - they showed her dad and sister but didnt talk about her relationship with them too much. Her getting married surprised me. I am still struggling to accept that she agreed to get married to that guy under the circumstances shown in the movie. Feels like nobody sane would. They don't tell about her feelings about him. Basically feels rushed. Like they tried a lot to just fit the Harry Potter story in.
-
gkangchs26 September 2022Factually, definitely Wikipedia-based, which means most likely not completely accurate. Nobody said it was a documentary; it's fictional, which means they were more concerned about an interesting story than depicting her life. The major points in her life were true, like the spousal abuse, single motherhood, conjuring up Harry Potter on a train...
That being said, in terms of entertainment, acting is meh, the script is a joke at times ("liver and tripe"? Really?), but as a writer, it does motivate me to go to my local Starbucks and work on my screenplay. What can I say? It was never a nominee for an Academy Award, but it inspires me. -
madserd16 October 2022Long before the magic comes a lot of trials and tribulations to create it, and that's really what this story is really about. Starts off with the Rowling's younger years and leading up to her adult life, her troubled marriage, her personal trails in life which often leaves her in a financial mess. A long story short (for the long version watch the movie) the narrative takes you through Rowling's days when she was on state support to becoming the richest woman in her country.
The story is inspiring and takes you through the journey of Rowling's life as she becomes a published author and one of the most famous one's ever!
It's not as magical as one of her books or the movie franchise Harry Potter but surely gives an inspiring tale of everything that went on with Rowling as she eventually become a published writer. Certainly worth a watch! -
molly-cutpurse8 January 2012Reviews 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.
-
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. -
velvoofell2 January 2012This made for television feature caught and held the attention one New Year afternoon for all the wrong reasons. A dramatisation of how Joanne Rowling discovered the idea for Harry Potter then became JK and rose to international fame is filmed like a particularly cheap perfume ad.
The director's apparent obsession with flashes of cleavage aside - at times you think you are watching the feature through dirty-old-man-on-tube Cam - the main actor has been cast for her resemblance to Rowling and little else. The director again seems to be at fault for not allowing his star to re-dub her lines but this is perhaps a trait of this rushed-to-shop production.
The whole early section, juggling a parental death with Rowling's teaching experience in Portugal, affair with a Latin lover and subsequent pregnancy, makes the Mediterranean hi jinx of 'Mamma Mia' look like Chekov. When Rowling returns to the UK with her daughter the real comedy ensues as the script hangs around the rumours and misdirection Rowling fed press junkets regarding her formative time writing Potter while placing the action in an Edinburgh that makes Diagon Alley look grittily realistic.
Canadianisms pervade the whole telling of this section. A single mother doesn't receive "assistance" in Scotland as the film insists, but 'benefits". Rowling's experience as a teacher in Leith Academy is grimly unresearched, with what looks like a Kindergarten in Hobbiton being her workplace. What in real Edinburgh is called "interval" or 'playtime' is erroneously referred to as "recess' by the Mcgonagle-like Headmistress.
Even by TV movie standards this is cynical stuff. The creative process is explored in clichéd montage, at once displaying Rowling as a lucky, remotely eloquent Bimbo - her child and relationship with her is laughably never believable - while never exploring the fact that Rowling lightly thieved from Dahl, Tolkein, Rattigan and Lewis in her development of the bespectacled Potter.
There are some that may say this insanely chocolate-box representation of Rowling's life and Britain is all she deserves for a biopic. Her vision of Hogwarts and intrinsic social classes in her novels is adolescent in its reflection of UK life and also posits an ideal school system that is rare in the UK and patrician and exclusive where it does exist.
That aside, this is camp Lambrini party viewing, provoking unintended laughs and hilarity, especially if you live in the UK. Watchable in that vein! -
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. -
sianabnett8 January 2012OK viewing for a damp winters day when there is nothing else on the box and your DVD player is on the blink. Research is laughable (if it was done at all)
Knowing Tutshill, having attended Wyedean and having worked in Edinburgh, this film shows the typical sickly sweet idealistic old fashioned chocolate box view of "little old England" (but at least they recognised that Edinburgh is in Scotland).
Maybe I'm being picky, but when making a biopic (authorised or otherwise) surely they should have a far better idea of the locations? It is 8-10 miles from Tutshill to the outer edges of the forest for a start. the uniforms for Wyedean are completely the wrong colours and the badge is a figment of the film makers imagination. All it would have taken was a quick search on Google ...... and don't even get me started on the buildings!!
As has already been noted by another reviewer, the linguistic differences between us and our North American cousins are very apparent (although I do note that the lead is played by an Australian) the accents throughout are either the typically clipped accents favoured by North American movie makers and the Scottish accents are woefully inaccurate. The language used is about as inaccurate as you can get whilst still speaking English one example being assistance (benefits) i'm surprised they didn't talk about grade school, high school etc. -
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
-
alfiethompson12326 August 2012As a former Wyedean student I'm not sure where to even start... The entire film is just shockingly researched from start to finish. Any fact finding has evidently been done by a couple of researchers sat at their office desks in America typing associated words into Wikipedia. As a former student of Wyedean, I can tell you now that the school is absolutely nothing like it is portrayed in the film. The film makers seem to have somehow got the idea that Hogwarts would be based upon Wyedean regarding looks, but in seven years of education there I do not once recall coming across any of the high ceilinged corridors or ornate beams pictured in the film. There were other numerous factual inaccuracies about England in general, such as the sweet trolley on the train, and the fact that Rowling is advised to hire an 'attorney', which is frankly a mistake an 11 year old wouldn't make. Perhaps the most frustrating moment in the entire film, for me certainly, was the line 'Being head girl at Wyedean just means least likely to go to jail', which was not only astonishingly inaccurate and very untrue, but downright insulting to the school and its staff and pupils.
This is the point where I say 'so forget the inaccuracies, just watch it, it's a good Sunday afternoon trash film to pass the time', but I'm not going to, because its terrible even as that. I have no idea how this film ever made it onto any kind of screen. -
J. K. Rowling had to write her stories in coffee shops because she didn't have any heating system in the place she rented which looked nothing like the nice flat in the movie. A biography should be faithful to the truth, this movie seems like a low budget story aimed more at elegance and good lookings rather than content.
-
chrisjdyer-8755213 March 2024That a load of sycophantic drivel. The acting is at best - poor but it's still far more convincing than the script.
Her school was nothing like the school described in the film. But that's true of so many other things in the film too. How on earth did any of the actors or crew keep a straight face when they pretended that British Rail trains had a sweet trolly? Some did have a sandwich trolley - but very few people were ever brave enough to try to eat one of the dreaded sandwiches. As for tripe sweets? What? More like a load of tripe fim.
Whoever did the research for this film really needs to look at a different career.
My daughter was a huge Happy Potter fan when she was younger and even she thought this film was about as entertaining as a headache. This waste of peoples time is just a crass attempt to make money from someone else's fame. Why work hard to achieve anything yourself when you can just make a film about some who did? -
kkleeband14 March 2017This is an awful movie. Truly badly done. The accents are horrific and the scenery is stock shots. Getty images probably made a fortune off this one. The terminology is all wrong. The moment I saw the actual scenery I knew it was filmed in BC. You would think that Canadian actors could pull off a credible British accent. Poppy Montgomery shocks me as she is an Aussie. Surely she could at least fake a British accent. This was SUCH a disappointment. I'll bet J.K. Rowling cringed when this is brought up. No wonder its UNauthorized. Phew, what a stinker.