Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

As I saw 'Magic Beyond Words' advertised as the story of J. K. Rowling's life before Hogwarts; I was disappointed to see the majority of the film depicting the publication and subsequent impact of 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'. All of the film pre-Potter was hurried passed at a clumsy pace and trips over itself to get to the "riches" part of her story.Aside from that, most of the film was decent, very well acted - for the most part - and became very touching in places, about as much as you'd expect from an average made-for-TV biopic. I give it an overall 5/10 for full presentation.

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.

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

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.