Harriet the Spy (1996)
Facts
| Directed by | Bronwen Hughes |
| Cast | Michelle Trachtenberg, Rosie O'Donnell, Gregory Smith, Vanessa Lee Chester and J. Smith-Cameron |
| Theatrical Release | July 10, 1996 |
| Running Time | 100 minutes |
| MPAA Rating | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) |
| Buy this item ... | 4 new from $4.00, 7 used from $0.50 |
About Harriet the Spy
This feature production from Nickelodeon is based on a popular kids' book from the 1960s by Louise Fitzhugh, and stars Michelle Trachtenberg as an 11-year-old wannabe journalist who writes all her observations about friends in a diary. When the book is stolen and read by her peers, she's ostracized. The film is hard to watch for all its sensory overload (rapid cuts, kooky camera angles), but its theme of finding a balance between a commitment to one's voice and one's obligations to others is fairly wise stuff. With Rosie O'Donnell and Eartha Kitt. --Tom Keogh Amazon.com
Website Links
- Movie Review Query Engine - Directory of movie reviews.
- IMDb - Features plot summaries, reviews, cast lists, and theatre schedules.
- Art.com - Search for Harriet the Spy posters.
Similar Movies
User Reviews
Average user review:| ok movie |
| harriet the spy the movie-- |
| Harriet The Post Cold-War Spy |
I seldom expect adult-level movies to be as good or better than the book, so I wasn't too surprised to find that the 1996 film version was, in many respects, lacking. This visually hyped-up version (you can tell this is a post-MTV product)is actually jarring. at times. And it drops(or virtually reduces to nothing) the book's many subplots. And would it have been SO terrible to actually set the film in the early 1960s, the era of the original's action? Of course, plots for "grown up" movies get updated too, and sometimes it works. But usually it's just an attempt to appeal to the "contemporary" audience and often violates the spirit of the original.
The notion that kids can't identify with children from other times and places is a pretty condescending one. And speaking of places, there seems to be little attemptin this film to capture any of the flavor of life in New York (in any era). Sure there are immigrant families, some urban eccentrics, and in fact, the film is much more racially and ethnically diverse than the novel But it could be Any City, USA. And while the notion of "spying" has a certain attraction for kids of any era, it had a special resonance in the Cold War years that would have been nice to see captured in the film somehow.
Having said all that, I would have to admit that--as some other reviewers mention--that this film will likely appeal to its target audience, contemporary pre-adolescents. A film doesn't have to be "truly great" to be entertaining, and that's true for any age level. And kids generally like to see their issues and concerns dramatized. The film makes its points about kindness and consideration vs. honesty and frankness well enough. In that sense, it really is good "family viewing," in that it can get parents and kids to discuss matters that concern almost any 11-year old.
But that's true of almost any "After School Special" or "very special episodes" of a given TV series. What really makes for great family viewing in my book is a film that is well scripted, acted and produced. It can be entertaining for kids AND adults. In fact, it should be as entertaining for adults who originally saw the film as kids. That's probably the ultimate test. Would a young adult of, say, 23 or 24 who saw this film when it was released 12 years ago, still enjoy it--or more than just a nostalgic level? I could be wrong, but I think any number of such viewers would come away from a viewing of this film today at least a LITTLE disappointed.
January 12, 2008
| Better than the book, mostly |
Many reviewers complain about the movie dragging before getting to the real plot. Trust me, it's greatly condensing the interminable descriptions in the book of Harriet's spying victims.
I was grateful the movie eliminated the absolutely horrid stuff Harriet wrote in the school newspaper at the end of the book (for goodness sake, what school newspaper editor would let a kid write a column that was devoted to ragging on the stupidity of a neighborhood kid, complete with the kid's name??? Or an article where she admits she followed the teacher home to a "rathole of an apartment"???)
During most of the book I was asking myself "why aren't these idiot adults mediating in this fight?" - and of course that aspect is not changed in the movie. I also thought the resolutions in both the book and the movie were unbelievable. In the book Harriet's apology claims the mean writings were all lies - which wouldn't go over very well since these kids would know that what she was writing was true, at least in Harriet's own mind. At least in the movie that's changed to where she says the statements are either lies or mean. And why did nobody ever sit down with the other kids and ask THEM if they had never thought unkind things about other people?
I can't understand how this book got to be considered a classic. Maybe just because it was one of the few books at the time that portrayed a girl in a non-girly role. I sure hope better books have been written since.
There are some good things about the movie. One of the best aspects is that it could open up some good conversations with your kids. December 17, 2007
| Awsome Movie |
More reviews at Amazon.com ...





