--- title: "Stuart Little: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/stuart-little/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/stuart-little" critics_score: 57 critics_reviews: 11 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Stuart Little (1999): what the critics said Critics' score 57 from 11 reviews: 3 positive, 5 mixed, 3 negative. 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 Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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 review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/stuart-little-7433888.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 17 December 1999. 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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/stuart-little-1999) ## The Guardian — Philip French Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 23 July 2000. 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 review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0,,346295,00.html) ## Time Out — WH Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/stuart-little) ## Radio Times — David Parkinson Rating 3/5. 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 review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-eicd9n/stuart-little/) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 3/5. 21 July 2000. 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 review](https://www.gamesradar.com/stuart-little-review/) ## Variety — Lael Loewenstein Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 8 December 1999. 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 review](https://variety.com/1999/film/reviews/stuart-little-1117759841/) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 48/100 (inferred from the text). 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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/17/movies/film-review-extra-sly-cat-upstages-stuart-little.html) ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/stuart-little-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 17 December 1999. 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 review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-dec-17-ca-44713-story.html) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. 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 review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/stuart-little-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/stuart-little.md