उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Harriet M. Welsch (Michelle Trachtenberg) is a sixth grader with best friends Sport (Gregory Smith) and Janie Gibbs. Her nanny Golly (Rosie O'Donnell) drives her to write. She spies on her neighborhood writing it all down in her notebook. Marion Hawthorne (Charlotte Sullivan) is the class mean girl. Golly sees Harriet is old enough and leaves. Marion takes Harriet's notebook and starts reading it out loud to everybody. Even Sport and Janie turns on Harriet when her uncomplimentary private thoughts become public.

The movie is aggressively trying to be wacky. It comes off looking cheap. Director Bronwen Hughes in her feature debut struggles from time to time. Some parts of the movie is less compelling than others. Spying on the cat guy is fine but spying on Eartha Kitt takes up too much time in an important section of the movie. Then there is the heart of the movie. While I appreciate the attempt at a life lesson, it's a bit too muddy. I don't know if white lies are worthy of being the central lesson of the movie. I would also have preferred Sport go off on his own rather than joining Marion. It seems wrong for his character that has been created. Trachtenberg is a terrific child actress and gives a great performance. She keeps the movie moving.

I wasn't much older than Harriet M. Welsch when I first watched this movie. I remember enjoying it but feeling funny about the moral aspect of it. I have rewatched it a few times since, and decided to read Louise Fitzhugh's 1964 novel before writing this review. The movie is rather faithful to Fitzhugh's work even if it is set in the 1990's. My feeling hasn't changed much after all these years, and I am still puzzled about the life lessons we find in this unusual story.

I will start by acknowledging the colourful costumes and sets and the stimulating photography. The movie is fun to watch and both child and adult actors are believable in their respective roles. Harriet the Spy follows the adventures of sixth-grader Harriet Welsch, an aspiring writer who believes snooping on her neighbours and taking notes is the best way to learn her trade. Harriet is from a well-off family and has a nanny named Golly. In the novel, most of the school children are rich and have maids and cooks. They attend a private school and wear uniforms. The movie has removed many of these elements to make the children relatable to a wider audience. But Golly is such an essential character, she could not be removed. Golly encourages the girl to write, exposes her to various people and places, but also acts as a moral compass. When under various circumstances Golly decides that her ward is old enough to fend for herself, the woman leaves and Harriet is deeply affected. Soon after, her classmates find one of her notebooks and read the harsh comments she made about them. Harriet is very judgemental in her writing, and her classmates all turn against her, even her two best friends. They begin playing mean tricks on her and Harriet strikes back. Harriet's parents take her to a psychologist because she has become mean and depressive and has been caught by a police officer for trespassing. The way Harriet finds her motivation again is through a visit from Golly and being assigned the role of sixth-grade newspaper editor so she can turn her writing obsession into something useful.

Now, I understand the notion of not talking down to children. Fitzhugh wished to present a realistic portrait of their minds and lives and Harriet is not meant to be a role model at all. Still, I don't find the outcome very believable. I don't understand how all of a sudden, Harriet's classmates vote for her as new editor after all she has done to them. They show a form of grace that is not realistic and is unjustified. Harriet is not exactly repentant, yet she is rewarded for her misdeeds. In the film, Harriet begins to write kinder things from that point on and learns to drop her hasty judgement on people. This adds a redemptive side to the story, but in the novel, she hasn't changed much and is actually allowed to publish her mean comments about people, the kind of elements she jots down in her notebooks. So, you will see why I am uneasy about the conclusion. But go ahead and watch it and you be the judge.

While not as zippily paced as the book, and the film can get predictable and a tad corny, it is entertaining thanks to the spirited acting and the enthusiasm that shapes this movie. The script is well written and quite mature and funny, and the premise about a girl who spies on her friends and family and writes about them in her notebook, is a nice one. The direction is good, the tone of the film is quirky and the performances are great. Michelle Trachtenberg is perfectly cast as Harriet, Trachtenberg was a very promising child actress and this is proof of that. Eartha Kitt is great as Agatha, and Gregory Smith and Vanessa Lee Chester both give spirited turns as Sport and Janie. As Harriet's nanny, Rosie O'Donnell is a really pleasant surprise. Here she gives a very warm performance, and I do think she was better than she was in The Flintstones, where I did like her but she didn't quite have the voluptuousness of her character Betty. The film is well shot, with a nice soundtrack. Overall, not perfect, but definitely worth watching. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I first saw this movie when I was nine years old. I liked it for that time. I in fact tried to emulate Harriet and her friends. But those days are over now. What I am trying to say is don't say this is an awful movie because you found it dumb. Yes, some of it may be a little...juvenile. But remember, it WAS MADE for juveniles, not adults or anyone else but the age range of 8-12. If you are between the ages of eight and twelve, and you still hated it, then yes, it is understandable. But it is ridiculous for an adult to say that they hated this movie because it is 'too juvenile'. I think this movie has a great plot and a great message to young children. Be truthful to your friends, and you will succeed beyond your dreams. I also read the book, and this movie is quite close to the book, which is a good thing for a movie to be. In totality, this is a cute movie with a good message, and if you liked the movie, read the book too.

A writer while describing the life and work of John Le Carré said this: "Writer and spy are two lonely professions, carried of emotions and both are developed under a certain load of tension". Nothing is more adequate than such quote when the analyzed person is the great Le Carré, author of treasures like "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", "Smiley's People" among many other espionage novels. The same can't be said to the main character of "Harriet the Spy" neither about the story, that almost reached such description (and it could have been way better).

So, little Harriet (Michelle Trachtenberg) wants to be a writer and for such she pretends to be like a spy who sees everything, writing down all the things she sees, from random and somewhat pointless happenings to making truthful remarks about her friends and school mates. But when her diary is stolen by her most ferocious enemy things can turn out to be real bad for her if such descriptions be known to everyone she knows.

A cute movie, nice to watch but that doesn't help us much. Fine, this a movie for kids and for them is prefect, very enjoyable, but those kind of flicks work better if they attract mature audiences as well, even if using two or three jokes for them. The cast assembled here with names like Trachtenberg, Rosie O'Donnell, Robert Joy and Gregory Smith makes of "Harriet the Spy" quite a good film, and we can excuse some of its problems.

The main focus that a good writer is made with observations and notes only isn't much handy (as Harriet discovers). Above all, and I can't believe this was left out of the movie, a good writer must be a great reader of all sources and different types of readings, must have a background of readings. And if I'm making too much fuzz over a kid's movie, too much complications, is because is that I wanted to see an intelligent work, with this kind of plot but in a dramatic way, with lots of suspense, a teenager who wants to be a writer but gets involved with more and more trouble while covering a story. Instead, we have an emo tale filled with corny moments. But that's OK. 6/10

I write this a couple of days after the very sad passing of Michelle Trachtenberg and like a lot of people I'm sure, I'm going back over her far to short list of credits.

While I think towards the end she didn't like to be reminded of her child/teen acting roles, there's no doubting her talent here. She carries the film and is highly endearing, displaying a lovely sense of empathy and comic timing.

It's such a shame we never got to really make it consistently as the star her fans knew her really to be of the potential of being.

We will just have to let her live on through films such as this.

I saw Harriet the Spy when it first came out and bought the video about a year ago. I had read the book back in the early eighties in the fifth grade and had never forgotten it. I always thought that it would make a good film (along with the Narnia tales and A Wrinkle in Time). The book was very engrossing and seemed a lot smarter and less condescending than some of the other books that wound up on school library 'recommended' lists.

The movie contains the same wit and utter lack of condescension, making it a rarity in the world of tweenage cinema.

Michelle Trachtenberg is very good. Her innate charisma and complete chemistry with Rosie o'Donnell make for perfect casting. Ms. O'Donnell herself shows once again how well she can carry off playing these quiet nurturing roles. (for another good performance by Rosie, see also Wide Awake)

Harriet seems like a typical albeit intelligent kid. Her friends are like real friends: they can be there for you and they can turn on you if they themselves feel under attack. This defense/offense posture is typical in a child's world. and that's what's great about Harriet the Spy. You never feel that the film is talking down to its audience or trying to present the child world in such a sweetened watered-down way so as to placate adults. Harriet and her friends have their little quirks. there's also the other kids who have wierdnesses about them that if we try hard we can all relate to. For instance, there exists in every classroom a perfect Teacher's Pet like Marion Hawthorne. There is also a Pinky Whitehead and a boy with purple socks. (probably me back then haha) the important thing is that the movie accepts their world without whitewashing or judging them for it. Those posters who felt that the movie was juvenile must understand that it WAS written for children. That doesn't however mean that adults should avoid it. It contains several themes that can be discussed and understood by anyone: Coping with school, Coping with Growing Up, Trouble with peers and miscommunication and isolation with parents and peers alike.

As i said earlier, The character of Harriet was well thought-out. They could've done a little better fleshing out the character of Janie. If i remember correctly, she had a somewhat larger role in the book. But they actually improved on Sport's role.

Some people have complained that the movie is disjointed and at times unrealistic. Well, try and think back to when you were eleven. wasn't the world somewhat surreal and disjointed? The movie is from The subjective lens of Harriet's minds-eye, an eye that see things with more than a little wit and imagination. Think back...then you'll get it.

This movie is extremely disjointed. It moves from one seemingly random scene to another with no real explanation of what is going on. Even after an hour into the movie, I could not have told you what the movie was even about. To quote my children, "That movie was terrible!"

Not only is the movie disjointed and confusing, it also gets quite mean-spirited. It actually made my kids uncomfortable watching it. We all expected this movie to be a fun, upbeat movie about a young girl being a "spy" and having adventures. Instead the movie had very little to do with adventurous spying, and instead was a showcase of dysfunctional families, a neurotic girl, and vindictive children.

If you are looking for an upbeat family film, this is not the one.

with the possible exception of irvin kershner's 1966 adaptation of elliot baker's a fine madness, i don't i've seen a better translation of a book about writing into a film. sure we think of louise fitzhugh's harriet trilogy (harriet the spy, the long secret, and sport) as being about the the comic adventures of a little girl and her friends in nyc and they are; but the heart of harriet's writerly spirit comes shining through in bronwen hughes film of douglas petrie's fairly literal, and literate, adaption. there is a period update which makes some of the book's innocence play a little quaint and the kid movie necessary rapid edit kiddie silliness that saps some of the seriousness without actually attaining the levity it seeks; but by and large the film is worth taking any kid over 8 to and anyone who has ever seriously thought of writing, or even just felt a longing to express and accepted. PS the rosie odonnell billing is way over valued. Michelle Trachtenberg,as Harriet, more than ably carries the film, especially considering she was only 11 at the time.

Meanwhile, anyone over the age of thirteen will probably find it boring. The title character comes across as the sort of person who does everything possible to entertain herself with no regard to anyone's wellbeing; seriously, some of actions seem kind of nasty.

Basically, the little ones will very likely spend the whole time laughing. No one else.

Harriet the Spy is the story of an eleven-year-old girl, who has been taught to be an individual. Harriet wants to learn about people and she wants to learn how to express her thought about them. So, she decides to becomes a spy and thus eavesdrops on the nuances of the world around her. Of course, her schoolmates find her all too different, and when they learn what she has been writing about, they decide to castigate her and that is where things come to a head. Children can be cruel. Even Harriet. But they can also be hurt more profoundly. Here is a story about growing up. Like Stand By Me, it enjoys humor, but balances itself carefully between the light and dark sides of growing up. Michelle Tractenberg is nothing short of superb in her role as Harriet M. Welsch. Rediscovered as Dawn Summers in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, here is a girl who by rights should have been placed on equal terms with Anna Paquin in Fly Away Home or Anna Chlumsky in My Girl. Harriet the Spy is an extraordinary film that bubbles out charm toward kids of any age.

Harriet M. Welsch (Michelle Trachtenberg) is a spy. But when Harriet's friends find her secret notebook the tables are turned on her. Can she win her friends back and still keep on going with the spy business? This film made it on to my to-see list because it was endorsed by Facets Film School. I had an additional interest because I think that Michelle Trachtenberg is an under-utilized actress. Now, as far as being a good kids movie, it certainly is, and was a good first feature for Nickelodeon. As for being a showcase for Trachtenberg, that is much harder to say. She is the star here, her biggest role at the time (and maybe since)... but the child actress is not the same person as today's actress.

Kids will like this, and it is clean enough that parents have nothing to fear in showing it to them. Adults without kids may be less interested unless it has some sort of nostalgia value for them. For me, I could have used less Rosie O'Donnell, but she was an unavoidable presence in the 1990s.

If I had seen this movie on its own, I would probably have no strong opinion of it. I can see how children would like it, and it's not "bad" in and of itself. However, as an adaptation of my favorite book from childhood, it's very disappointing, and that's why I rate it as I do. Perhaps "Harriet the Spy" was never suited for updating to the late 20th century. And it's a difficult thing to adapt to film, since so much of the text takes place inside Harriet's head and in the pages of her notebook. This book and I are about the same age and I'd like to see it done again as a period piece, with more attention paid to casting and less to the swirly 1990's camera work. It's simple: look at the author's illustrations in the book, and find actors who look like that. Eartha Kitt can be wonderful, but she's no Agatha Plummer… what about Angela Lansbury? Or Rue McClanahan? The worst choice of all was Rosie O'Donnell as Ole Golly. (To indulge in a little fantasy casting, I'd love to have seen the late Nancy Kulp as Ole Golly; I think she would have done a wonderful job.) Oh well. It is what it is, and your mileage will vary. I don't think Louise Fitzhugh would have been pleased, and I know I wasn't.

This wasn't what I thought it was going to be. Mainly it was way too juvenile, but also the actors gave unconvincing performances. Probably a decent film for kids, and it carried a good message of forgiveness in the end, but I figure I'm too long in the tooth for this style of entertainment.

My 11-year-old daughter and I watched the video of Harriet the Spy last night. I found the story a bit slow to get going, but my daughter loved it. Once the plot finally kicks in (Harriet alienates her friends when they read the "truth" about them in her secret diary), it is well-developed and very "real". The resolution is satisfying without getting too soppy. The young actors are all superb, and the quick-cut editing gives it quite a pacy feel that my daughter really responded to.

My favourite scene was the cat man in "Birdland"--good enough we rewound the tape for my husband (a jazz fan) to watch the scene.

One oddity my daughter and I both puzzled over... After Harriet's parents confiscate her diary, she is seen destroying it in her room, and later her parents return it to her intact. It seemed to us like that middle scene was intended to be cut, but got put in anyway.

I gave this film 8/10 from a "family viewing" and "production quality" aspect. My daughter gave it a thumbs-up 10/10, and she doesn't do that very often. If she's the target audience, and I presume she is, the film-makers got this one right on the nose.

"Harriet the Spy" has to be one of Nickelodeon's greatest movies ever created! Michelle Trachtenberg was flawless in her role as Harriet M. Welsch as she displays such emotion and energy, that her acting made Harriet a very likable character. I love the way that Harriet is spunky and eager to learn more about life and that just makes me love her character more. I also love Rosie O'Donnell's role in this movie as she acts as Harriet's guide to learning more about life by encouraging her to write about what she sees out in the open. The scenes where Harriet is tortured by her classmates because she wrote some nasty things about them, is both intense and realistic as we actually see Harriet suffering from losing her two best friends and how she ends up distrusting everyone around her. "Harriet the Spy" is definitely one of Nickelodeon's classics that can't be forgotten for a long time.

This little film has been roundly criticized for being disjointed and amateurish.

Well, it _is_ disjointed: part of it is surreal allegory, part realistic morality play. Part of it moves with a natural rhythm while other parts seem to have been transplanted from afternoon TeeVee. Some is done with a cartoon cosmology, and the rest is straight from Marlo Thomas' heart. Distributed throughout are mottles of bad acting and unconsidered dialog.

And I loved it all. Why?

Because this is in the tradition of movies and books that generate themselves. Rather, the characters in the stories play double duty as the authors of the story and the creators of the world that surrounds it. So it makes sense as precisely what a preteen would imagine her older self writing about her.

Indeed, the whole thing is a meditation on how someone might abstract the world (for writing) without a mature faculty for abstraction — which is to say how a kid would imagine an adult's mind imagining a kid's mind.

Its all about the deep problems of writing. I imagine the author of the original book sitting down and having trouble writing, them ruminating about why on the page.

Therefore, we have a youthful experimenter, a blocked writer, a "gardener" who makes environments from trash, another maker of environments (cages) who craves companionship, a woman who lives in a cage (Kitt), the Dad who is a movie comedian, together with lesser characters.

And the spy who spies so she can write what we see. It is all about sight and callow abstraction, just what movies were made for. Sure, it differs from the book because film can amplify what the book cannot. The adapter (the guy that did the game as life as game "Jumanji" project) understood this.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I guess,there is no Mr. Danny Glover in this movie.