Harriet the Spy

This movie was not what I expected, but I was not disappointed; I was rather entertained. I'm not familiar with the books regarding Harriet the Spy, so I thought the movie was going to be about a kid who uncovered and foiled some illegal plot she stumbled across. I had no idea it was about a girl who aspired to be a writer. It was more dramatic than I expected too, but very realistic..it was about loosing friends and winning friends back-a more realistic story than uncovering and foiling an illegal plot. I loved the city scenes of the children running around Ontario in the autumn. I found it to be rather cinematographic.

this movie i went and saw when it first came out. After watching the behind the scenes promos on nickelodeon i was really shocked that Nickelodeon can do movies as well as a television network. Brilliantly written and acted i loved the acting and all the characters. It shows that what you are thinking is not always good to write down for fear of someone finding it. It also show's her trials and tribulations going through 6th grade wanting to be a spy and having a nanny in the mix. I loved Rosie O' Donnell in this film she is truly an awesome actor and during the movie you can't help but get a little teary eyed and crack up when your supposed to. I recommend for anyone especially a movie night for the family and/or friends! ~!

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.

I just saw this film yesterday morning - ideal relaxation for the holiday weekend. The story was OK, maybe a bit shallow for my taste - I'm haven't been a kid for a long time - but I was really taken with the acting. Everyone played his/her part beautifully, completely credible, and none was the frightful red-haired brat as used to be portrayed in children's movies.

I was particularly taken with Harriet herself, and am not surprised that she has gone on to greater things.

The main lesson learned from this film appears to be that two wrongs do not make a right. Bush note!

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.