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.

As 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.

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.

OK 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.