Avis des utilisateurs

Truly a family movie, especially made for kids. That explains all; the absurdity, the irrational acts, the incredible story and yet the finale.

Don't mess the story by thinking how can it happen in real life, because it won't.

The casts are well chosen, unfortunately Jonathan Lipnicki is less adorable than his appearance in Jerry MacGuire. Geena Davis is very standard as well as the other casts. But look at that little mouse! He's so adorable indeed, very sweet and beautifully made to make you fall in love with him from the first sight.

Well, it worked well, at least from the ratings and the gross income.

A family classic movie. Watch it on a Sunday morning. It will lift your spirit up.

Note - This is a condensed version of my review

Pros:

To start I felt the voice and on screen actors gave great performances. Michael J. Fox as the voice of Stuart little was a great choice as he brings in my opinion allot of charm and emotion to the role, now it may seem strange to cast him as the voice of a ten year old mouse even though at the time Michael was in his late thirties. It's really hard to comment on though because I thought the voice and the character design fitted perfectly. The rest of the voice cast are great too, Nathan lane as the voice of Snowbell is again another great casting choice, and he brings so much charm to the role as this reluctant and over melodramatic feline, not to mention Steve Zhan as Monty the alley cat who brings allot of wisecracking humour to the role.

The on Screen performances are also very really great; Keep in mind that Huge Laurie, Geena Davis and Jonathan Lipnicki all had to work with thin air, literally. As Stuart was this CGI character, he'd later be brought onto the big screen through post production as all the on screen actors had to work with was maybe a replica doll of Stuart and then would have to do the actual take with just them imagining he was there on the set so it's pretty impressive considering that's what they had to work with throughout the majority of the film.

I also have to mention that the score by Alan Silvestri is incredible. I felt the score truly brought Stuart little to life and made all of these small sized adventures seem more grand and captivating than originally thought. Now some may say that the score can get some what overly whimsical at times however I thought the score was perfect for this film and really stands out during the Central Park Boat Race. Alan Silvestri has performed scores for many films including allot of Robert Zemeckis productions including the Back to the Future Trilogy, Forest Gump, Cast Away and even the first two Predator films not to mention a couple Marvel films including captain America: The First Avenger and the Avengers.

I should also mention the direction of Rob Minkoff is great too; some of the action scenes in the film including the Central Park Boat Race and a car chase that happens later on in the film are very well shot and extenuate how daring these events must be for a mouse like Stuart.

As I said at the beginning of this review Stuart little was nominated for an Oscar for best visual effects, how this wasn't for best original score, I don't know but considering the other two films nominated for best visual effects were the Matrix and Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, I think the film got overshadowed by those two films but I do think the CGI for Stuart has held up incredibly well and considering the Film came out over 16 years ago, the Oscar nomination is well deserved and plus id rather take Stuart Little any day over, Jar ,Jar Binks.

Cons:

Some of the dialogue is also a bit odd, like there's this scene when Mr little and George are preparing their boat for the Central Park Boat Race. George is unsure about the boat race and Mr Little asks if George is okay and George says he wants to go home. Mr little asks 'why' and George says 'I forgot to bring my lucky underwear, Mr little replies'you don't have lucky underwear' but George replies with 'well maybe we should get some and then come back for another race'. What? I don't know whether that was meant to be funny but to me at least it's a very strange piece of dialogue but then again this movie was written by M. Night Shyamalan so I shouldn't really be surprised one bit.

I'm also not sure how close the movie follows the original novel and keep in mind that I haven't read the novel and I have heard that the worthy follow up Stuart Little 2 follows more closely to the original novel than the first film. I heard in the original novel that Stuart got caught in a window-blind while exercising, and then Snowbell places Stuart's hat and cane outside a rat hole, panicking the family. I believe they may have replaced this scene with the one from first film in which Stuart is accidentally thrown into the washing machine although the Central Park Boat Race is in the original novel.

I think the biggest complaint that this film gets quiet often is how unbelievable it is because well, how can a mouse walk around New York without being stepped on by the foot of a human. How can you adopt a mouse as your son and take him home on the same day, how come cars and boats are operational with inner working parts without the use of an RC steering wheel, and Batteries. You really do have to go into this film with as much suspension of disbelief as possible; otherwise you'll probably hate this Movie for how unbelievable it is.

Final Verdict:

Overall I think Stuart little is a good movie for all the family. Although the film takes some liberates with adapting the film from the novel and the dialogue is a bit odd, the excellent voice and on screen performances, Incredible score by Alan Silvestri and amazing special affects make this film stand out over other family films, the film has also in my opinion has held up surprisingly well after the film was released 16 years ago, in my opinion Stuart Little gets an Seven out of ten

If you told me five years ago that I'd be watching a movie about a mouse who is adopted by humans, I'd probably ask you what kind of drugs you were taking and how many would I need to take to enjoy such puerile piffle. But five years ago we didn't have the kind of technical wizardry we have now; witness Toy Story, the new Star Wars, or any of the recent Disney films. Five years ago, the mouse would have been a regular rodent with a not-too-subtle voiceover. Remember Homeward Bound, the movie about the two dogs and the cat? There was no computer animation there, and you were basically left with three animals who appeared to cavort onscreen while some humans talked in the background.

So now here we have Stuart Little, a tiny little mouse (voiced by the always-fresh Michael J. Fox) who has lived his entire life in an orphanage. One day, the Littles (Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis) come to the orphanage looking for a brother for their young son George (Jonathan Lipnicki). Of course, with so many cute little boys and girls, it's impossible to choose - until they come across Stuart, who seems smart, funny, and wise beyond his years. George isn't too fond of Stuart at the start - he expected something a little... um, taller - but this is a kids' movie, after all, so eventually they bond as only a boy and his mouse brother can - by winning a boat race against a nasty bully.

There are a few storylines jammed into this 85-minute extravaganza. Stuart wants to learn about his natural parents, the family cat wants to kill him, and the parents want Stuart and George to get along. The way most of it plays out will come off as standard movie fare - predictable to those of us over 10, perhaps - but the winning charm of Fox as the loveable Stuart coupled with an engaging and appealing cast of characters makes up for any familiarity you might feel. On top of it all - the special effects. Now, I'm not one to heap overweening praise on special effects, but at no point during the viewing of this movie did I consider Stuart (or the cat, voiced by Nathan Lane) to be an artificial computer creation. Sure, you have to suspend belief a little bit for this movie, but hey - don't you have to do that with almost any movie, anyway?

Both "Stuart Little" and its first sequel, titled "Stuart Little 2" are two nice little family films that I recommend for their effective blend of drama, adult humor that never goes out of hand, controlled suspense and violence as well as language, and yet it never gets so immature as to become only for the kids. Some critics thought that the movie might have had some moments too intense or unsuited for young children. I was eight years old when I first saw this film and it never bothered me. I was surprised to find swearing in this film, but again, it didn't degrade the film because it was sparingly used and by that I mean it was only used once or twice.

The character of Stuart is very effectively brought onto the screen. The mouse is entirely computer-generated in an efficient way and the contributions of Michael J. Fox's voice work out very well. The same goes for the other animated characters. All of the live-action performances were well-done and they blended in perfectly with the CGI characters.

"Stuart Little" has a good heart and it is can be a very warm little family movie for everybody to enjoy. I still enjoy it nine years after I first saw the film and I do recommend it. It's a film that will suit audience members of all ages. As long as you enjoy family films.

Stuart Little: The Little family set out to adopt a child, and choose a amiable talking mouse instead, much to the chagrin of their son and the family cat.

There are two words that describe this movie - words I swore I would never use in a review- : cute and sweet. Based on the children's story by EB White, the story is funny, cheerful, engaging and translates well to the screen.

The filmmakers obviously realized that making Stuart look real was essential to the movie's success and spared little expense (approximately half the film's $60 million budget went to Stuart). The results are phenomenal - you can see each individual hair on his face, his movement is amazingly fluid and when he talks, you forget he's animated . The same techniques are also utilized to make the film's felines talk. The voices - Michael J. Fox as Stuart and Nathan Lane as Snowbell - were ideal choices and help to enhance the experience.

Everyone left the premiere sporting a big silly grin and I think you will too. One note - you'll never look at pest control quite the same again.

I must have seen this film about a dozen times, and I seem to enjoy it more and more with every viewing. It was one of my favourites growing up as a kid and the fact it's on TV practically every week says a lot about how popular it remains, even 18 years after its release.

'Stuart Little' is certainly a crowd-pleaser and a film that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and not just the younger viewers it is targeted at. The cast are all great and Michael J Fox does an excellent job voicing Stuart. 'Stuart Little' is a film that never loses its charm, no matter how many times you see it.

As a kid I loved this movie, as an adult I'm like wtf. So I guess I should say it works as a kids movie; good animation and a easily followable storyline. As far as deep diving into the concept, it's way past strange. Decent acting.

I've seen it more than once, just to give it the benefit of the doubt and not just comment after one viewing.

I was very disappointed after the first viewing, and didn't feel any better after the second.

So many unnecessary changes were made to the story, with way too much cat vs mouse BS.

Yes, I know that Hollywood is known for thinking that they have the ability to improve on someone else's work, but I wish they'd accept the fact that that is not the case.

Someone else wrote a review .... "Excellent film adaptation......" , wish they had read the book before writing. :(

A family adopt a mouse.

Although the screenplay shows little resemblance to the source material, it is a nice story with some good family values and plenty of moments that entertain.

What makes it work are the performances and visuals. Stuart is brought to life with a lovely voice performance from Michael J. Fox. The character animation was excellent at its time of release and it just about holds up on modern viewing if you try not to compare it to movies created with the latest technology.

Other voice performers like Nathan Lane, Chazz Palminteri, Steve Zahn, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly also make strong contributions.

The live actors are reasonably good, particularly Geena Davis who has a striking presence and comes across as the committed mum that anyone would want. Hugh Laurie is solid, but the part wastes his considerable comic talents.

The cinematography, set design, costumes and general art direction are all very strong.

A good one to watch with children.

This mouse just makes me undesirably angry. I hate him with a passion. He has these little eyes that stare into your soul and make you feel disgusted with yourself for things you never did. He is slowly drenching my soul out of my body and every time i look at him i want him to drench it faster. He has a head that is shaped in a weird way and his eyes are forward facing and therefore he's a predator which makes me all the more scared of him.

Did not pass the vibe check.

Wow, there are lots of name actors are either in front of the camera or being used as voices in this unique animated-real life film. They use real people and animals (except for fake mouths when the animals "talk") and an animated mouse (Stuart, voiced by animation favorite Michael J. Fox.) who looks incredibly life-like.

The colors in this movie are terrific, especially with the house that the Little family lives in. The story has some clever stuff in it but it strictly played for laughs and reactions since credibility is about zero in many parts of this story. However, it's supposed to be outrageous. I don't think Geena Davis has ever played a nicer role than this. It was good to see. The husband was just as nice, played affably by Hugh Laurie.

The jokes are good for the kids and adults. I know a couple of parents who liked this movie even better than their kids, so don't believe it when someone writes that this is a film strictly for kids. That is not so. I did object to some profanity in here at the end, which seemed so out of place, but it's hard to expect Hollywood to get everything right.

The sequel to this film is even better!

Took my 9 year old niece to this a few days ago.

Read the reviews and must admit this little movie was taken a tad *too* seriously. So what if the mouse talks and wears clothes? He gets adopted by humans? He is probably the cutest character I've seen to date, and just look at how well he was animated! His expressions were very human.

Story was nothing new, but lots of action to keep the kids interested. For the children at heart: The cats. They were kewl! Loved their voices.

CONCLUSION? Take the kids to this! Nice to watch something that isn't loaded with the sex and violence you see in movies these days.

The Little family are looking to adopt a boy to give their son George a brother. When they go to the orphanage they meet an adorable mouse called Stuart and decide to adopt him. Despite early resistance from George, Stuart makes himself part of the family, much to the chagrin of the house cat Snowball. To get rid of Stuart, Snowball reaches out to some local alley cats to set up a whack on Stuart.

If my plot synopsis has talked up the mafia connotations of the cats, it is because that is the part of the film that I find the funniest part of the film because it is lacking in the syrup that kind of takes away from the rest of the film. The main story is quite sweet but also has a good sense of humour that will appeal to adults as much as children. It's not perfect for, like I said it does get a bit overly sentimental at times although it just about manages to stay sweetly sentimental and not fall into being sickly sentimental.

The animation is superb and only occasionally does Stuart look out of place in the frame. For the most part it all flows well together and was deserving of the Oscar nomination. Just as deserving is the animal training - anyone with cats will know how hard it is to get the little b*stards to do anything you want, so to have them do so much work is very impressive (although I understand it is all about food).

The cast are all pretty good. Davis and Laurie play it straight and are lumbered with carrying the emotional side of the film and don't have much comedy (a shame considering Laurie's talents). Michael J. Fox does the best work - he makes his Stuart very sweet and likeable; a true prince amongst mice! Lipnicki does OK but is basically just the `cute kid' that is legally required in all American family movies. The funny stuff comes from Lane, Zahn, Kirby, Tilly and, best of all, Palminteri, who's mafia cat is hilarious and sends up his own characters by doing so.

Overall this is an enjoyable family film. It may not be hilarious for adults in the way Toy Story and it's like are but it is not dull. It has characters for adults and plenty for children and it's all a bit of fun with a slightly overly sweet centre to it.

Classic Shyamalan writing: I mean the twist in this case is meta in that ultimately....wait WHO wrote this screenplay and then you realize this was the Shyamalan magic the whole time. Boom. I know right?

Stuart Little is a mouse, adopted by a family of human beings. Geena Davis is the mother, Hugh Laurie is the father and the son is that nice little guy from Jerry Maguire. He wants a little brother, Stuart is smaller and so he is a Little brother. The family has a cat, Snowbell. He is jealous because in a way he is the house cat of a mouse. Stuart is treated just as a human being, which sometimes is a little strange, but it has its own charm. The little Stuart Little in a big human-sized bed, but his own little sports car driving through Central Park. It doesn't make much sense, but it is nice to watch. The story is pretty predictable, but most family films are.

The creation of Stuart is wonderful, he looks great and you start to believe he is a real mouse, adopted by caring parents. The voices are also great. Michael J. Fox as Stuart and Nathan Lane as Snowbell especially are very nice. If you just like a nice film, with a fantastic computer generated mouse and a happy ending, this one will not disappoint you.

ok, I watched this film after I slipped down my stairs and I was so injured that I had to lie down and watch some HBO, so this little movie comes on, alrite I got nothing to do ill watch it. It was a cute little movie and if I was fifteen years younger im sure i would've loved it. Not exactly as I remembered the original book, but it was an ok adventure. Only problem being the fact that if the mouse can talk and the humans hear him and the mouse hears the cat talk, how come the humans- forget it.

Ugly little computer generated mouse is orphaned and needs to find a home... so the adoption agency decides it's "cute" to stick him with a human family. He shacks in with the family as a freak, but then worms his way into their hearts. Isn't that sickening? The usual problems persist: Snowbell tries to eat him, alley cats chase him, he's nearly drowned in the washer. Pathetic and weak family comedy wants to drive the viewer into a reverse Marilyn Manson effect. Using moral teachings, lame dialogue, and pitiful writing to imitate what the TELETUBBIES do in an entire season. If you still have an ounce of sanity, I implore you to keep it and don't watch this film!

This movie is really sweet, and I enjoyed it enormously. Sometimes it is a bit overly sentimental, and the human characters aren't as charming as the animal characters. Jonathan Lipnicki was sweet as George, but doesn't quite have the charm he brought to the The Little Vampire. Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie do amiably as the parents, but both seem subdued. Luckily, the human characters don't interfere too much with the animals, and still bring a certain charm to the screen. Stuart is wonderfully voiced by Michael J.Fox, and he joined by a hilarious Nathan Lane as Snowbell and a villainous Chazz Palminteri as Smoky. The script is intelligent and sweet, and there are plenty of charming scenes with Stuart and George. All in all, really sweet, fun and memorable. 8/10 Bethany Cox.

Stuart Little gives a very good example for why absolute great and lovely Special Effects alone cannot carry a film. I don't know the original story and don't know how much was left out and what was in it, but I know that the adaption just wasn't interesting or moving enough for me, and I definitely am a sucker for cute and touching "children's" movies (animation mostly, but this comes close, and I loved "Babe"). Another point is, movies like that also have to be funny, laugh out loud funny, and Stuart Little just isn't "that" funny.

And why was that troublesome cat so very abruptly oh so very nice? I wanted her to die! I hate cats. :-)

6 out of 10.

Ugggh. One of the most empty, banal kid's movies I've seen in ages. Technologically impressive, yes, but it got no soul. And this is one of those books-to-movies where seeing is NOT believing . . . . much better when you imagine a mouse living with a fambly than actually having it laid out all crisp like. (Think "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues", f'rinstance .. . you could sorta imagine the whole Sissy's thumbs thing in the book and not have it be silly, but seeing Uma Thurman with big plastic prostheses was ha ha time). The other thing about this flick was that while the message was supposed to be that species (read: race) didn't matter, the whole presentation was that anyone with anything other than a WASPy accent was bad. Period. Bonus ugh: the preview for the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" movie coming out next summer . . . . clearly another technology over soul production that won't add a whit to the primitive and wonderful original.

I took my 3-year-old to see STUART LITTLE as his first movie. I did so, however, with some trepidation. I have such wonderful childhood memories of White's book and Williams' perfect illustrations. My son was enchanted once little Stuart appeared on screen (as was I) and he really liked the cats. He made it through the whole movie which is in itself a tribute to a nicely-made children's movie. As for me, the yuppie/preppie accoutrements of the the movie's Little family did make me a little queasy. Worst of all and not surprisingly, the filmmakers avoided the novel's bittersweet ending. Instead they opted for a simple, warm-and-fuzzy Hollywood ending. Clearly, school-age children need to read the book for a more edifying and emotional experience. For younger kids, STUART LITTLE makes for a fun trip to the movies.