No, it wasn’t all that good and there was no need to make it.
0voters
What is with that movie? I mean, a completely animated movie on Stuart Little. Why did they make it? They didn’t even have Nathan Lane as Snow Bell! Snow Bell isn’t Snow Bell unless he’s voiced by Nathan Lane. Post what you think about it.
I think Nathan Lane just didn’t want to be involved with another crappy movie. Or, it was probably because they were starting work on his broadway show running now, November.
It was about [spoil]Stuart and his family and they’re on summer vacation and there’s this bush monster thing and Stuart goes looking for it…[/spoil] something like that. The first one was on TV the other night…not a bad movie…then they made a horrible 3rd one!!!
Stuart Little was good, but why did there have to be a third one? Besides, it’s too cheap if the first and second one was part live action and then the thrid one is all animated. Makes no sense. If there had to be a third one, at least keep it part live action like the first two were!
I quite enjoyed SL’s 1 and 2. I thought they were fun family films. But in this case, there was really no need for a third one. Read the original book by E.B. White. It’s pretty cool, actually!
I forgot; it’s been a long time since I’ve read it. The only way left for you to find out is to read the book for yourself, (or look it up, and spoil it).
I’ve watched the first one; the second one was of little remembrance to me, but I think it was nice, too; never watched the third one. Though I have came across this animated sequel in VCD/DVD stores, I never really bothered to buy it.
One of the reasons, as you might have guessed it, it’s because it’s animated. Not that I have anything against animations (not referring them as a genre, BTW, Mr. Bird ), but an animated sequel just didn’t seem very appealing for me, especially the sequel to a rather nice blockbuster, if I do say so myself.
I guess I might be able to catch it someday; hopefully, when that day comes, the experience will be a good one.