Critics’ reviews

Stuart Little (1999)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 57: 3 positive, 5 mixed, 3 negative.

Back to our review of Stuart Little

57
Positive
3
Mixed
5
Negative
3

The consensus on Stuart Little is mixed, with praise clustering around the effects rather than the storytelling. Critics repeatedly admire how convincingly the computer-generated mouse interacts with the live-action cast, including several who find the film disappointing. The animal characters’ humour and voice work also earn approval, with the cats frequently singled out. Warmer reviews find enough charm and gentle fun to make it enjoyable family entertainment.

The divide is over how much sweetness the story can sustain. Several critics find it overly sentimental, while others point to an uninspired narrative and human characters who seem awkward or dull beside the animals. Responses range widely: the Evening Standard warmly endorses the classic storytelling, whereas the Los Angeles Times finds the film dull and largely uninvolving. Comparisons with the book bring further reservations about the loss of its mystery and magic, even among critics who enjoy the adaptation.

Evening Standard
10 April 2012
90*

The critic calls the film a small, perfect joy and praises its classic storytelling. They single out the convincing interaction between the computer-generated mouse and the live-action cast.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
17 December 1999 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

Ebert finds the film charming and enjoyable as family entertainment. He especially praises how the computer-animated Stuart fits into the live-action world.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
23 July 2000 · Philip French
75*

French finds the film a lot of fun despite its being less mysterious and more mundane than the book. He praises the convincing digital animals and the Central Park boat race.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· WH
64*

The page identifies itself as a review, but its body is unavailable, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. The available description identifies the film as an adaptation of E.B. White’s story, but reveals no specific praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · David Parkinson
60

Parkinson finds the film charming but says its narrative lacks inspiration and is overly sentimental. He praises the animation and the voices of Stuart and Snowbell, while finding the human characters awkwardly performed.

Read the full review →
Total Film
21 July 2000 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The review finds the film lightweight and overly sentimental, but enjoyable for viewers of all ages. It especially praises Stuart’s convincing CGI performance and the funny animal characters.

Read the full review →
Variety
8 December 1999 · Lael Loewenstein
55*

The critic finds the adaptation more than passable but ultimately too slick and labored to capture the book’s magic. The technically impressive animation and the cats’ humor stand out, while the human characters feel dull by comparison.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
48*

The headline suggests the review finds the sly cat more compelling than Stuart Little. The cat’s ability to upstage the title character is the only discernible point of praise.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
35*

Thomas finds the film wholesome family fare but ultimately too cute and saccharine. He praises its technical trickery and singles out the unusual voices of the cats.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
17 December 1999 · Kenneth Turan
30*

Turan finds the film dull and largely uninvolving, despite its appeal for young viewers. He praises the computer-generated mouse and says the adventures work best when they follow the book.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
30*

The review is critical, finding the film dull and overly sentimental despite some appealing elements. It praises the model work and says Stuart and Snowball steal the show.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate