Harriet

The film is ultimately fairly frustrating. The central performance by Erivo was really good and powerful. The film is quite handsome-it was nice seeing some photography by Toll with a budget. The technical aspects provoke period and the director gets a lot of suspense out of Tubman's escape and rescue missions. The film takes a pretty narrow range of Tubman's life as its plot but working within that range it seems to be fairly accurate. It certainly was engaging. The film resists centering whiteness-abet not fully-and I was glad to see that the Underground Railroad seemed to be almost exclusively black. The film doesn't contain a white savoir trope so there's at least that.

However, the film's narrowness results in a too simple and too short of a rendering of Tubman's life. Her work on Women's suffrage was a mere footnote. Arguments around what sort of actions the abolitionist movement should take were greatly reduced. John Brown was omitted entirely. Fredrick Douglas was given a cameo. The film jumps years at a time and it results in narrative that is merely a skeleton of Tubman's most well known experiences.

The film is weirdly hesitant around Tubman committing justified violence. At times the film contorts itself to avoid showing Tubman hurting people, especially white people. It seemed to be too saintly of a characterization especially as the film leans heavily on Tubman's faith. (In general the faith stuff lands with emotional resonance). This is a far less visceral portrayal of slavery than 12 Years a Slave.

Overall I think this is pretty good biopic.

Putting aside the directing, editing and overall story line the films most egregious aspect may actually be the score. Think cheesy lifetime TV movie style of music. It is so terrible in fact it is actually distracting. This might actually be the only silver lining considering the sluggish pace of the film that also unfortunately only tells one part of Harriet Tubman's incredible life. It is unfortunate that it has taken Hollywood this long to make a film about Tubman; however, perhaps they should have waited a little longer to get it right.

I think so many here are rating the film based on accuracy as opposed to whether or not it was a good cinematic experience. If the film were called something else, and you didn't spend the entire time comparing it to some encyclopedia (or Wikipedia for a lot of you), would you have enjoyed it? Probably, because it was interesting, suspenseful, exciting, moving, and well acted.

Remember it is not supposed to be a documentary. If it were, then yes, rate it based on accuracy. Even then, many aspects of her life were included in the movie. I deduct 1 star for inaccuracy, and the other two because it isn't a perfect film.

How does a movie like Avengers filler with completely made-up, unrealistic, green giants and floating hammers rate 8/9? Because you're rating the movie, not the accuracy. Then you watch Harriet, and suddenly you're a historian and a film critic. I dare you to make your own film, and make it better.

Watch it, enjoy it, learn a little bit, appreciate a lot. 7/10.

Fantastic job on the FIRST feature film about Harriet Tubman. All of the actors did a great job bringing this historical figure to life. This film deserved more accolades than it received.

Oscar season is fully underway as there's nearly a new film every week that is attempting to garner enough praise to warrant awards consideration. Harriet's marketing campaign was less than stellar, and without a lot of buzz, I figured it was going to be a throwaway period piece about an iconic American hero. Luckily, Cynthia Ervo and a great ensemble help put this fill over the mediocre edge and instead boast a crowd-pleaser of a film. One that audiences seem to be on board with, and rightfully so. It's certainly not re-inventing the biopic formula, but it's undeniably engaging.

7.0/10