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.
Review of Harriet the Spy
