User reviews

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm not understanding why so many people are hating on this movie. Show me a movie based on the life of a real person where the entire movie is 100% factual. I thought it did depict what I have read about Harriet Tubman in books, online, and what I actually read when I visited the Harriet Tubman museums/visitor center in Church Creek, MD, and Cambridge, MD. It was not poorly done. I loved it and highly recommend it!

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.

WHY? How difficult is it to get first hand and historical accounts and stick to THAT SCRIPT? What on earth is to be gained by taking a larger than life figure, a real person and throwing in random people and events that never happened?

If you want to see a REAL MOVIE on Harriet Tubman, look at the Cicely Tyson version: A Woman Called Moses.

If you are thinking of going to see this film, please, PLEASE do not believe the negative lies about this film. This film is PHENOMENAL. There's no Harriet romancing any white masters, there's no sex scenes with Harriet and everything the film says Harriet did, Harriet actually did in reality. The reason why people are being negative about this film is to keep the masses from seeing this film BECAUSE of its message. They don't want you to see and know the message of this film, the message of this film being that both black and white people can work together, for equality and for freedom.

So i'm telling you, this film is WORTH the $24.50, you will not regret it. I KNOW it because I just came from seeing this film an hour ago tonight. GO SEE this film, it is POWERFUL.

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 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.

A very well done film. not an "instant classic", but 100% watchable from first scene to ending credits. Cynthia Erivo pulls it off like an old pro. really the acting is fine all around. that speaks to the Director too. kudos to Kasi Lemmons for that, and making this a flick that could be a First Date choice. they could have gone a Tarantino - 12 Years a Slave hybrid direction but chose not to. makes it too "soft" for some, but again, kudos to Kasi Lemmons. if you're in middle or high school it's worth standing in line for. if you're not, this one may not be an absolute must see, but DO check it out later on streaming, etc., if not at the theater.

Harriet Tubman has near-universal name recognition. Soon, she'll even be replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. But the events of her life, which is why her name is so recognized and why she deserves to be featured on currency, are far less known. This makes seeing Kasi Lemmons' 'Harriet' more valuable than just spending a couple of hours watching a movie. It's also like spending time at an educational lecture, gaining a deeper understanding of our history, our country, and ourselves.

Cynthia Erivo gives a phenomenal performance as Harriet and the story itself is truly inspirational. Throughout the film, however, the dialogue often stands out like a sore thumb, dragging the film's overall rating down. It either comes off as far too cliche, mundane, or basic compared to everything else in the movie, making it that much more (painfully) noticeable.

Overall, we still recommend seeing 'Harriet' for the reasons noted above, but just wish the pencil used to write it were a little sharper.

Harriet kept my attention the entire time. It is fast paced, well acted, well written. While showing the cruelty of slave owners, the film stays focused on Harriet the entire time. Hope this isn't a spoiler, but I left inspired. Harriet was a courageous, determined rescuer. I'm really glad there is a movie about her.

American History is riddled with many dark ... this may not be the most political way to describe it I reckon. There are things in the past that the USA still hasn't completely dealt with. And there are still things going on that can be considered discriminating to say the least.

So this is a powerful story of a woman that fought against a system that was more than wrong, no matter how it was viewed back then. We may almost find it comical that some people were crying when they lost slaves. Not because they regarded them as humans but as property and value (in money). But the titular character had other plans, not just for herself, but for others that had it as bad or worse than her.

The question is, if you want to delve into that past, if you want to see what this is showing. For education mostly of course, but also for a powerful message.

This has to be the biggest disappointment of 2019. Whenever a movie is made about historical figures, there's always some degree of fiction. However, they went above and beyond this to a degree that was ridiculous. They needlessly created primary characters that aren't part of the historical record . Also, some elements of the relationship between Harriet Tubman and the slave master were totally unbelievable.The acting was ok but, never reached the caliber that one would expect for this type of film. Finally, the cinematography wasn't that great. It was done in a way that made it seem like a Lifetime movie or something that should have gone straight to dvd instead of being in theaters.

Harriet is a heart breaking story about bravery. It was well acted and based on interviews, it was depicted with less violence so that parents could bring their children and perhaps start that discussion about history. It's rated PG13. It was dramatic and emotionally charged. I enjoyed it and would highly recommend.

It's a partial biopic of Underground Railroad conductor Harriet Tubman (Cynthia Erivo), mostly set from 1849 to 1863 in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Upstate New York, and briefly in St. Catharines, Canada. The story begins with house slave Araminta Ross's marriage to John Tubman (Zackary Momoh), a free African American. "Minty" is owned by Edward Brodess (Mike Marunde) and his wife, Eliza (Jennifer Nettles). Their oldest son, Gideon (Joe Alwyn), plays a prominent role in pursuing Harriet throughout the film.

When the Brodess family threatens to sell Minty further south, she decides to flee north. Along the way, she receives help from a secret African American abolitionist pastor (Vondie Curtis-Hall), Quaker abolitionist Thomas Garrett (Tim Guinee), and William Still (Leslie Odom Jr.), an African American abolitionist in Philadelphia. After this first success, Araminta, who then takes the name Harriet Tubman, returns multiple times to Maryland to rescue her family and other enslaved people. Pursuers include Gideon Brodess, Bigger Long (Omar Dorsey), an African American slave catcher, and Walter (Henry Hunter Hall), another Black slave catcher.

"Harriet" has a lot going for it. Cynthia Erivo is outstanding and brilliantly reflects the changes in Harriet Tubman's self-understanding as she changes through the years. It does an excellent job with her visions, and the cinematography throughout is striking. The rest of the cast is somewhat stereotyped, probably to let Harriet shine. Joe Alwyn and Omar Dorsey are appropriately villainous. The other abolitionists are mostly backdrop. Nevertheless, "Harriet" makes a profound emotional impact.

The script plays quite a bit with history. The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850, very soon after Harriet's first escape; the film makes it appear to take place much later. The Brodess family did not have a son named Gideon. Araminta married John Tubman earlier than depicted in the movie. The film does not note an earlier Araminta Tubman escape attempt. There is no note of the financial abuse she suffered later in life in Upstate New York. Some of these are minor details but underscore that "Harriet" is not a true biopic.

For a movie that could have been steeped in actual history about an incredible woman they created a storyline that was complete rubbish ( fiction) and denied viewers insight into some of that most amazing things about this women. What a shame. I think people that loved this movie simply don't really know their history. The primary antagonist was a made up person to drive a fictional storyline.