User reviews

Stuart Little and the family are spending their summer vacation at a Lake Garland cabin. Stuart can't wait to strike out and have an adventure in the woods, but everybody is against it. Then Brooke tells them that there is a Beast in the woods, and he likes to eat cats. The creatures of the forest all cower at the feet of the Beast. Stuart befriends a skunk named Reeko (Wayne Brady) as he seeks adventures in the woods.

This is just a shadow of its past. There is nothing left other than a poorly drawn computer animated straight to video movie. At least most of the actors return to voice their characters. But it's really not watchable for adult. This is strictly cheap entertainment for the very young set.

After the first two films, with their lavish sets, excellent acting, and state-of-the-art CGI, this comes as a massive disappointment. It's an ultra-low budget animation, so poorly drawn that it looks like a rough draft rather than a finished animation. The cast who played the Little family in the previous films return to voice their characters here, but the dubbing is so haphazard that you'll swear that different actors were used. The plot is paper-thin, the jokes are mostly lame, and even the very young are likely to get bored well before the end. A great shame, as the first Stuart Little in particular was a great hit with my daughter, and one of the best children's films of recent years. Stuart Little 3 is, however, best avoided.

Stuart Little is back in an all awful sequel and this time he's a boy scout. It's funny how nature is seen in this movie as a playground meant to be tame and fun for city people with no idea of how to distinguish a pine tree from a mushroom. The cougar portrays of course the forces of evil who must be tracked down and vanquished by a goody-goody lab rat and a cat who acts more like an overgrown guinea-pig than a cat. The parents are as usual a goofy, happy pair with the father who sees vicious, vampire skunks and rabid chipmunks behind every single slimy toadstool and the mother who smiles and cleans up the mess without complaining.

this movie is for kids ages 3-10. it is not for older children or adults. children in the proper age group will really like this movie as they know the main characters already and the story is at their level. It should not be called the third movie in the series as it is an animated movie not meant for all audiences. My young children enjoyed it much more than their parents. This looks like a trial for a TV animated series and is something you would expect to find on television. It is not a Disney quality movie but it still appeals to young kids who relate to the characters, especially Stuart Little, who is voiced by Michael J. Fox.He does a great job as usual.

I must admit that this film was very well animated compared to other animated films of the same time frame. It looks more realistic, which compared to the first two films is excellent. And the voice-over work in this film is by far excellent. Most of the cast from the first two returned, with the exception of Jonathan Lipnicki. But Wayne Brady's voice appears in the film as Reeko the skunk. Thats a plus.

Some of the scenes though, very much reminded me of scenes from earlier Disney films. For instance, the lioness on the rock is reminiscent of Pride Rock from "The Lion King." And the name of the skunk is Reeko, very similar to Meeko from "Pocahontas." Even the forest animals are very similar to those in "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Bambi." The animation. although well done, seems to be a rip off of Disney films.

After careful consideration, I gave this film a 6.

After seeing the first two movies and watching the hell out of them as a kid, I heard quite a few years later that there was a 3rd movie and got excited but also a little confused as into why I had never heard of the 3rd installment to the Stuart Little film series. I now know why..it is an embarrassment! I couldn't even watch half of the movie because it was just plain terrible, I probably only watched about 15-20 minutes of it and switched it over to another channel.

Obviously the main question is why the hell this was in crappy CGI and not a mix of live action with good CGI like it was the first and second movie. I don't think anyone knows this answer but to be honest it would probably be due to low budget and this movie's purpose was to try and cash in on money. The animation looked unfinished though I do see what angle they were trying to go for, but for a MOVIE? And a prequel at that, it's just not good enough. This type of animation would be better for a TV show not a movie.

Though I have to say that it's good to hear Hugh Laurie and M.J Fox back as their roles though obviously not all of the original actors could be in this film, I say they dodged a bullet. The voice acting (from what I heard) was actually good and didn't disappoint me, so I have no real issues with them.

From what I saw this movie was a typical family trip that goes wrong in some way and that there are a lot of side stories such as George seemingly taking a liking to a girl at the camp, Snowbell getting scared of a myth and Stuart...doing something (I dunno I never got far enough into the film to find out), and Mr and Mrs Little..disappearing in convience of the plot.

Overall, if you are a Stuart Little fan then just plain skip this! It is a disgrace to the franchise and I will hopefully be forgetting about it by tomorrow when I FINALLY see The Lego Movie in the cinema tomorrow. Just plain skip skip skip!

I'm amazed the official actors were willing to do the voices due this film. The animation is abysmal, so cheap!!! The plot, the music, everything feels quickly thrown together for a straight to video movie. Very low quality.

This cartoon second sequel to the original was made direct-to-DVD due to the financial disappointment which was SL2, and after watching it you'll probably wish they hadn't bothered.

The majority of the voices from the live-action series are there, but the animation is ugly to say the least and the plot is constantly interrupted by annoying musical interludes...

...None more so dire than the one sung by an irritating new character called Rico, an obnoxious skunk who's solo number reminds me of the rapping dog from The Legend Of The Titanic. If you're curious what I mean by that, don't be. For the sake of your soul.

In any case, aside from a few amusing one-liners from the always loveable Snowbell, this is an infinitely missable cash-in deservedly destined for obscurity. In a world where Disney and Pixar exist, why bother? 4/10

This One Was Absolutely Awful It Was Very Boring Didn't Like it at all

Stuart Little 3 features a richly layered performance from Tara Strong, but that may be this dour threequel's sole distinctive feature.

I didn't like the cartoon version, the story is good, but it would be more interesting with real characters. I didn't like the cartoon version, the story is good, but it would be more interesting with real characters... I didn't like the cartoon version...

Searching, I discovered that because costs, they prefered do a animation movie rather than a live action, but for me what metter is the story, and the story is very good, they leave that house and goes to the jungle, and it's pretty amazing see this new place, the movie like always, does a great message about friendship, the new characters are cool, and all them have great scenes, i liked of soundtrack too, and the movie it's very funny to watch.

Having thoroughly enjoyed the first two films, I was looking forward to Stuart Little 3. Sadly though, in my opinion it was rather charmless and very disappointing. The only reasons why I did't rate it any lower are the sweet and memorable music and the voice acting, Stuart is still appealing, Kevin Schon is not as good as Nathan Lane but is nonetheless good as Snowbell and Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie are excellent. However, the lip movements are barely in sync with the voices and the animation has a rough and unfinished quality to it. The script is weak, with the more poignant moments(or moments that strived to be that rather) rather over-sentimental and the jokes due to poor timing falling flat, and the story is rather bland and thin and doesn't come close to the charm and heart the first two movies have. Stuart still appeals and Snowbell is okay, but the other characters don't have the same sparkle and are perhaps underused as a result. Overall, charmless and disappointing. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Stuart Little and his family are out vacationing at a lake in a rented cabin. Unlike the combination of live action and animation of the first two movies, the whole thing is entirely animated.

Basically the story is about Stuart and friends finding and having an adventure with the local animals, with the villain this time known as The Beast. What to do about him, since he wants to eat the animal cast? In the end Stuart finds the way to get rid of his threat.

This story is still good for the kids. Nothing special but good enough not to bore or dismay them, and there is no potty humor to worry about. Certainly better than, say, Barney the Dinosaur.

This movie is the cinematic equivalent of diarrhoea. When the universe was being constructed, the God in charge of all this clapped his hands together and said "Listen lads, let's make a species that can create 'Stuart Little 3'."

I would like to apologise on behalf of the human race for the existence of this film, and to those inconvenienced by its mere existence.

Instead, watch the previous two masterpieces of cinematic interest.