Harriet

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.

I went in wanting to love it, ended up just waiting for it to be over. The best part to me was the closing scene and the written adlibs after. I really don't like disparaging works that show the history of Blacks in America, as our stories need to be told, but I was very disappointed. The lead did not evoke any compassion in me, and the villain was very unconvincing. Think about it, 12 Years a Slave and Django had you side-eyeing the actors that played the slave owners because they emoted so well. The lead villain, Gideon Brodess, God Bless him, didn't pull it off IMO. The fact that the best performances were the supporting cast, Leslie Odom as William Still, Clarke Peter as Harriet's father, Omar J. Dorsey (no spoilers as to role) and Henry Hunter Hall (no spoilers as to role) doesn't bode well for a film. Maybe the fact that they made Harriet 24, 25 instead of a mature woman? Maybe it was the dialogue that was written a bit "slick" for the time period? Maybe the inconsistencies with what was presented vs reality? Even Janelle Monae was just so so for me. Although I do not work in Hollywood, when there are that many failures within performances and only the veteran actors shine, it may be the director. I dunno, but I was disappointed. I would still support the film because we need Hollywood to know we want our stories heard/seen. Maybe if Viola Davis' project had gotten support, her version would have been better. She was going to star in and produce a biopic on Harriet Tubman for HBO, but it never happened. I would give it 5/10 stars.

I wonder if the people giving this film a "nine" or "ten star" review or rating even saw this film? We are rating the film, not the person. If there is a botched and problem ridden film on da Vinci we don't rate the bad film highly because we like the person who is putative its subject.

Please. The scripting is insultingly lowbrow, almost patronizing. The acting talent has a good record in other productions but in this film is unrealized due to the other problems. There are quite a few ahistoric, frankly false, events in this film which are not needed and make the film more a less than credible hagiography as opposed to the plenty sufficient bravery, courage and strength of Tubman herself. Why maker her some kind of mythical comic book type character???? Is this the story about a real life hero, or about a graphic novel superwoman who people will just assume is fictional?

Lastly, I am not a religious believer. I am a confirmed atheist. But I find it troubling that Tubman's deep religious feelings and expression, whihc she used as the main, if not sole lens though which she saw the world, and which motivated her, is discounted.

The film is not a total loss, but Tubman deserves better, much better, as do contemporary audiences.

HARRIET (2019)

Abolitionist Harriet Tubman escaped from Maryland to Philadelphia in 1849 on foot by following the North Star and utilizing the help of the Underground Railroad, a network of secret routes and safe houses set up by white abolitionists and free people of color to help slaves to freedom. She then repeatedly risked her life by going back into the lion's den over a period of eleven years to lead other slaves to their freedom. She never lost a passenger. This is so damn brave it makes my head spin.

This film served up a substantantial serving of history, embellished by a modicum of fiction. Though it's not a movie masterpiece, it's a strong depiction of Harriet's Heroes Journey that lifted me up for days. Cynthia Erivo's portrayal of a determined Harriet, known before her liberation as Araminta "Minty" Ross, (and later nicknamed Moses because she helped her people escape to freedom), was stirring; her singing was the gold on the edges. Harriet used spirituals as coded messages to warn fellows of danger or to signal a clear path.

The antagonist in the story is the racist, corrupt system of slavery embodied in part by her heartless owners. Plagued by hypersomnia sleeping spells caused by a head injury when she was thirteen, Minty's owner Edward Bodess tried to sell her. This would separate her from her family. There were no buyers for her. Angry, Minty prayed, "Oh Lord, if you ain't never going to change that man's heart, kill him, Lord, and take him out of the way." Edward died. Harriet expressed regret for that prayer.

Joe Alwyn played Gideon Brodess, Edward's grown son, with a conniving, lecherous sneer. Guideon leered after Minty and tormented her. Harriet's husband was a free black man in theory, but not reality; any future children of the couple would be slaves, regardless of papers granting manumet to Harriet's kin, which the Brodesses ignored. She and her husband planned to escape together, but Tubman fled alone and travelled a hundred miles through wilderness to Pennsylvania, being followed by her scummy owner Gildeon. Well, screw him, she made it, and became a heroine.

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.