Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

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.

molly-cutpurse 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.

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.