Stuart Little 2 (2002) User Reviews

cute kid's movie

[cherold · 6/10 · 24 December 2003]

Some cartoons, even those aimed primarily at children, are still well worth seeing for adults. I was hoping Stuart Little 2 would be one of those, but it falls just a little short of the mark. It's cute, and it's funny enough to have kept me from turning it off, but it's a kid's movie all the way. If you're a parent who wants to watch something with your kid this is a good choice because it's fairly entertaining, but I wouldn't recommend it to adults without kids. But it's darn cute.

good family flick

[veemoffa · 6/10 · 2 August 2002]

While I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I hold with the minority opinion that it isn't up to the standards of the original. The first movie succeeded in being sweet and charming without being the least bit sugary. Alas, the sequel doesn't entirely avoid this pitfall (that "little high, little low" business is just a little gagging). Also, the plot is too predictable, although that probably won't matter much to children, who are, after all, the film's target audience.

These are really minor quibbles, though. "Stuart 2" is a fine movie, both for kids and adults. The special effects are well-done, all the actors do a good job in their roles, and the dialogue has some real gems. Particularly noteworthy is Snowbell, the cat (voiced to hilarious perfection by Nathan Lane). He gets all the best lines, and steals every scene he's in--he even upstages Stuart himself! Verdict: Good movie. Go see.

This "Little" goes a long way.

[Victor Field · 2 March 2003]

While less isn't always more, the makers of "Stuart Little 2" resisted the temptation to pad it out from its shorthand running time, meaning it goes by quickly and painlessly. Not that the actual plot of this followup to the original charmer is hard to take in itself (Stuart is starting to feel a bit left out, and when Margalo the wren literally drops into his life he gets a new dimension).

In terms of technical levels it's only slightly easier to fault (Margalo looks a bit too cartoonish to be real, unlike Stuart Little himself and the falcon that's the movie's villain - but then again, Melanie Griffith [the voice of Margalo] always seems like a cartoon anyway), but the story by screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin and the movie's producer Douglas Wick is what makes this ultimately inferior to its predecessor; what helped drive "Stuart Little" was our hero's wish to be accepted by his human brother and by the cat - sneer all you want, but the family message was hard to ignore. For the sequel it's more standard - the friend who's acting out of ulterior motives at first but then turns out to be a real friend, etc. Stuart isn't so much the protagonist this time, and it hurts a little.

So the freshness is reduced, but this still isn't stale - the charm and humour of the first movie remains, Michael J. Fox and Nathan Lane are as adept as ever as Stuart and Snowbell ("This better be important." "Margalo is missing." "I'd better be more specific - I meant important to ME."), and the human Littles remain just right - loving but not without making you want to slit your own throats. HBO Family has recently aired an animated version with all the principals except Hugh Laurie absent - it'll have to go a long way to live up to the two movies. (In-joke for score fans: Alan Silvestri slips in a quote from his "Back to the Future" theme in the climax.)

But I can see why this didn't do as well at the box-office as it should have - having a soccer match plus including Gilbert O'Sullivan AND Celine Dion on the soundtrack was asking for trouble...

A movie you can watch with your kids

[birkland · 7/10 · 26 August 2005]

Sure, this is a kid's movie, but it's sufficiently engaging to hold mom and dad's attention, even through repeated viewings. Little touches like having tiny Stuart wear a NY (football) Giants t-shirt and clever, and the highly stylized look of the film is just fun. The costume designer should get an award for making the costumes look sort of contemporary and "Miracle on 34th Street" at the same time. And while the plot is predictable and telegraphs its punches, it's also gentle and doesn't drag out the scary stuff too long, which makes this a good movie for kids. A lot better than a lot of the kids movies you will run across at Blockbuster.

Inventive nature no longer new and this is only for the kids

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 15 June 2014]

Mother Little (Geena Davis) is overly protective of Stuart (Michael J. Fox) and his little size. Mr. Little (Hugh Laurie) is more confident. He almost gets injured in the soccer game when brother George (Jonathan Lipnicki) scores the winning goal. George has a new friend Will. Stuart tries to fix George's model plane, he gets an unintentional ride and wrecks it. George is not happy with Stuart and they grow apart. Then canary Margalo (Melanie Griffith) falls from the sky into Stuart's car. A falcon (James Woods) is chasing them. Margalo is hurt and she stays with the Littles. It turns out that Margalo and the falcon are in it together to rob the Littles. The falcon pushes Margalo to steal mother Little's ring and she flies away. Stuart and Snowbell (Nathan Lane) set off into the scarier parts of NYC to find her while George covers for them.

This doesn't have the fun of discovery of this charming world where a little mouse is treated as any other boy. This starts off with a strained brotherhood between George and Stuart. That could have been a good subject to explore. Instead they introduce a cute canary and sets Stuart off on a different adventure. So instead of a deeper character relationship story, it's another children's adventure story. It's still good for the kids, but not much for everybody else. The short running time also points to the thin material they're working with in this one.

A nice sequel

[rbverhoef · 6/10 · 30 May 2004]

'Stuart Little 2' is a nice and sweet sequel with the same charms as the first movie. The mouse Stuart (voice by Michael J. Fox) has an adventure in the big city together with the house cat Snowbell (voice by Nathan Lane) because the bird he loves (voice by Melanie Griffiths) is taken by Falcon (James Woods). Of course the family Little (with Geena Davis, Hugh Laurie and son George played by Jonathan Lipnicki) is looking for Stuart.

A movie like this is allowed to be predictable. You know it will end happy and that is the way it should end. A movie like this needs some charming, sweet and funny moments and 'Stuart Little 2' has those moments. Every moment between Margalo the bird and Stuart is sweet and charming and especially the moments with the real characters are sometimes very funny. Another nice thing is the creation of the mouse and bird itself. Since Stuart or Margalo is in almost every scene in the movie there is always something nice to look at. This is a perfect movie for the whole family.

Stuart Average

[patrick-green · 3/10 · 25 August 2006]

Stuart Little 1 was a fun movie,even though there was a bit of sentimental rubbish at times. But Stuart Little 2 was almost nothing like the first film. It was not as funny, there was enough sentimental trash to choke a small horse and there were just too many American values in it. The bird friend was just ridiculous and made you want to chuck your birdwatching binoculars away and buy a shotgun. Snowbell the cat was probably supposed to be the comic relief amidst all the sentimental mayhem but was a massive failure. The falcon just went into the same category as the friendly undersized budgie: shotgun fodder. I felt sorry for my little brother who had to go through this rather unenjoyable pastiche. Things I learned from this movie: -Falcons are nasty, vicious, bloodthirsty pickpockets -cats are afraid of having their house burgled by strange, undersized budgies -Sentimentality in films is like syrup. Thick and sticky -little spectacled brats(eg George Little)belong to some strange subspecies of overgrown garden gnomes with an affection for lab rats (eg Stuart Little).

Another great family film

[adamonIMDb · 7/10 · 16 April 2017]

As someone who has always enjoyed the first 'Stuart Little', I found the sequel to be just as charming. Like the original, this is another great family film that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and not just the young kids it's targeted at. The sequel does everything just as well, if not better than the first film.

I'm surprised at how poorly 'Stuart Little 2' was received, not only with the ratings on IMDb, but it also didn't do well at the box-office. Considering the sequel has more adventure and in general more fun than the original, I don't see why so many people seemingly didn't like it. I always thought the 'Stuart Little' films were impossible not to like!

A Truly Nice Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 2 February 2006]

I liked this better than the original, and that''s a high compliment because I thought highly of the original film: Stuart Little. As good as that was, I just thought this was even better.

All the voice-overs are excellent with Nathan Lane having the best lines as "Snowball," the cat. He was simply hilarious, line after line.

The film once again features great colors, a virtual rainbow of them, especially with some of the inventive rooms in the Little house. The parents, once again, are super nice. It's a treat to watch Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie play an old- fashioned "Leave It To Beaver"-type couple. The film has no objectionable material and leaves you with a nice feeling. There are animated films or animated/real life combinations like this, that advertise "family-friendly viewing" but don't really deliver, instead sneaking in sexual innuendos and the like.

Not here. This one is pure, morals-wise, except for one scene near the end when the mom (Geena Davis) tells Stuart and their son she's still proud of them even though they just got caught in a big lie. (Inferring that the lie was okay since everything turned out okay.) Other than that, nothing but good messages were heard and seen all around and this is a funny movie, to boot. Highly recommended for the family, and that's no cliché.

Stuart Little in another big adventure

[studioAT · 6/10 · 3 May 2012]

After the success of the original 1999 film the whole cast reunite for this sequel that may be a rare case of a film that betters the original.

Again using the classic book by E.B White as source material this film manages to create story lines that is appealing to both adults and children and moves along at a nice pace.

The human actors are all good in their roles with Hugh Laurie trying out the American accent that would prove useful in the TV series 'House' years later and the voice acting of Nathan Lane and Michael J Fox is great.

Overall a welcome addition to the series and if your family enjoyed the first one they should certainly enjoy seeing what happened to the Little's next.

for the kids only

[Spanner-2 · 5/10 · 23 July 2002]

This sequel to the mouse as family member film is well.. for the kids only... I found it rather dull for long stretches and, despite first rate animation, nothing much of note happens that would make me care about Stuart or the little birdy he is trying to save. GRADE: D

The Clock Train

[smartins-1 · 21 September 2006]

Dear Sirs,

I have a 3 years old son who's watching all the time "Stuart Little 2". He really loves to wealth it. At the beginning of the movie,there's a scene in which George wakes up by a clock in a shape of a train. We live nearly a railway station and he also loves trains. I would like to know if there's a way of buying such a clock in order to offer him.

I hope you continues to give people all that Stuart Little that Stuart Little Magic.

Best regards

Sílvia Martins

Dreadful

[Leparsdon · 3/10 · 22 July 2003]

I just saw this movie for the first time, and I must say this is awful. It is by far one of THE WORST childrens movies that I have ever seen. The animation is very unbelievable, the story is barely there and I found it just a tad bit ridiculous. The first one was much better (on that child's movie scale)and I would suggest that you save some money and skip this one.

Better than the first one!

[marm-56231 · 7/10 · 27 March 2020]

It was mostly enjoyable from the middle of the film to the end.

cute

[dhaufrect · 5/10 · 25 September 2002]

This E.B White story is cute and enjoyable to watch. Even at my old age of 58, there were some moments of laughter with a cartoon like fantasy of a feature. No doubt, the kids in the audience were treated to a fine film for youngsters, since their reactions were so very audible.

Better Than The First Film

[TheMysteriousReviewer · 7/10 · 16 May 2021]

Stuart Little 2 makes a good sequel and better than the first film. The story is engaging to see Stuart being taken to the next level with courage. The heart does come to the right place. The use of visuals are very nice. The cinematography contains a nice view of New York City. The characters are enjoyable. And the final act makes a nice climax to the film. Okay, yes it can have some flaws such as like in the first film, the humor is pretty weak and the film plays too safe from at least half the movie. But despite those issues, the movie makes a much better ending than the cheap looking direct-to-DVD third film. So if you're looking for a kind of film you need better than the first film, this is for you. Did I personally think it deserves a sequel? At first, not really. But it breaks through my expectation as an enjoyable film.

More of the same

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 18 September 2021]

Another one I saw at the cinema and very much more of the same as the first one. There's a great deal of sentiment and a lot of teaching aimed squarely at the kids. A bit much for me.

I do not exaggerate in giving this my highest rating. I enjoyed it *that* much.

[TheUnknown837-1 · 10/10 · 8 May 2010]

As of present (May 2010), I have never read the E.B. White classic "Stuart Little," however I have had the delightful privilege to see the two films based loosely upon its content. The first "Stuart Little," released in 1999, was a very sweet and charming little family picture that I enjoyed immensely as a kid and still do to this day. I remember I also enjoyed the sequel, "Stuart Little 2" when I was younger, but now having re-watched the film for the first time in a long time, I discover that a rare instance has occurred: I enjoy the movie more now as an adult than I did when I was eleven. Perhaps it's because I now understand the adult humor and Snowbell's hilarious lines better, but overall, "Stuart Little 2" is a very good picture.

In the sequel, Stuart Little (voiced by Michael J. Fox) now has a quintessential relationship to his family. His human brother George has accepted him as a sibling and the cat Snowbell is now his pal instead of his enemy. However, poor Stuart feels a little left-out in the world because of his small size and his lack of real friends. That is until a little bird named Margolo (voiced by Melanie Griffith) literally drops into his life (from the sky), pursued by a vicious falcon. When they are clear of the evil bird's talons, Stuart and Margolo develop a very strong, very heart-warming friendship while teaching to the younger audience members very important lessons about life and friendship.

Those messages were communicated to be very well when I was younger and they still are today. I'm not exactly sure why I like "Stuart Little 2" more as an adult than I did as a kid, but maybe it's because I can understand the full extent of it. The filmmakers made the right choice to film it as a family picture, incorporating elements that children can understand but leaving in great moments of comedy to keep the adults interested. More so than in the first one, the picture is kept upbeat by the hilarious presence of Snowbell the cat, voiced by Nathan Lane, who has one terrific one-liner after another. A favorite moment of mine is when Snowbell is serving as a tool so Stuart can speak into a payphone. Their time runs out and he asks Snowbell for more change. The cat looks at the mouse standing on his head and cackles out: "What do I look like? A fanny pack?" "Stuart Little 2" is a real treat to look at with some gorgeous cinematography and a deliberately over-painted New York City with everybody in the movie wearing extravagant outfits. The special effects used for Stuart, Margolo, Snowbell, the falcon, and the other animated characters in the film is very good, best exemplified by the eyes of Stuart and Margolo. Their eyes are solid black with no visible pupils, but the animators carefully manipulate the characters' expressions to mirror every emotion that could be asked for from a real-life performer.

Perhaps the best element of "Stuart Little 2" is the change of point-of-view from the first one. In the original film, most of the plot involved the Littles' difficulties in adopting a talking mouse as a child and a great portion of the film was people looking down upon little Stuart. Here, the story takes place on Stuart's level, from his point-of-view, and we come to associate and identify more with him this time around. I also really like Hugh Laurie, Geena Davis, and Jonathan Lipnicki as Stuart's adoptive family, who do a really good job at maintaining the illusion that they are communicating to a two-inch mouse adopted as their son and treating him with loving affection.

But the best scenes are the scenes of Margolo and Stuart, particularly a little scene where they are on a date at a makeshift drive-in movie theater: sitting in Stuart's model car in front of a television, watching Alfred Hitchcock's marvelous 1958 film "Vertigo" which we later learn is a poignant choice as there are some parallels in the relationship between Stuart and his avian companion.

"Stuart Little 2" is a wonderful family film. Some may question my judgment and wonder if I exaggerate just a little in shelling out my highest rating for this film. You may ask: maybe it's good, but is it *that* good? Well, maybe not on some critical scales. But the way I review movies, dissecting and analyzing but more or less reporting how I personally responded, than no, not in the least. I enjoyed "Stuart Little 2" so much, every little second of it was a gem for me, and I more than enthusiastically award it ten stars.

A charming follow-up that soars with touching moments but falls short of capturing the magic of the original.

[Mysterygeneration · 5/10 · 7 January 2024]

With its small anthropomorphic mouse at its heart, Stuart Little 2 delivers another dose of quirky delight. Impressive visual effects are used to bring Stuart to life in his animated universe, while Michael J. Fox's voice performance gives the character warmth and individuality. Melanie Griffith, who plays the bird Margalo in the movie, is a new character that gives the story a heartier touch. The emotional center of the film revolves around Stuart and Margalo's bond, which delves into themes of self-discovery and friendship. In keeping with the overall sentimental mood, the movie also explores the dynamics of the Little family, with Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis repeating their roles as Stuart's human parents.

A Fun Follow Up

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 21 December 2020]

It's three years later, Stuart Little (MJ Fox) is the same size even if he's older, but that doesn't stop Mrs. Little (Geena Davis) from being overprotective. Stuart wants to do things like play soccer with his brother George (Johnathan Lipnicki) and in this bizarro world that the Littles live in nobody sees anything wrong with that. It's hard to be too bothered by it; we're talking about a bipedal talking mouse after all.

Stuart met a young friendly bird named Margalo (Melanie Griffith). He thought he finally had a friend his size whom he could do things with only to find out she was working as a thief for the Falcon (James Woods).

It was a fun follow up to Stuart Little.

same characters, flat jokes... a typical sequel!!!!

[r-provencal · 4/10 · 26 December 2002]

Wouldn't it be nice if a movie studio leave a film as a standalone? Because Stuart Little raked in buckets o' cash, the makers just had to forge ahead with a crappy sequel. My summary says it all: the jokes are flat (my kids weren't even laughing; I didn't even crack a smile the entire 70-odd minutes) and the plot is hackneyed. The only character who is remotely interesting is James Woods as Falcon. Stuart Little 2 is very forgettable. Even though my kids conned me into buying the DVD, I'm hoping they let me sell it for them on ebay when they grow tired of it --- which I am sure will be very soon.

Fine Instalment to the Trilogy

[RECB3 · 6/10 · 10 October 2023]

This is an alright instalment added to the trilogy to watch. There was a bit of room to create the storyline better but it was still good to watch. There were some weak points of the storyline. The cast selection was great. Michael J. Fox delivers every time that he is on screen. This instalment reveals to viewers the true definition of friendship and the impact that it can have on the life of someone. I have never known what it is like to have true friends. I was constantly bullied and hated growing up. I have never had any real friends. I was always alone. That has left me with emotional and mental scars that will stay with me for the rest of my life. This is a fine instalment for viewers to watch.

Hey Stalker you missed a few movies

[ThunderKing6 · 5/10 · 9 March 2022]

About: Stewie going on an adventure while he's on a falcon's radar.

Story: It's okay. Not as good as the first. That one was a classic

soundtrack: It's decent.

Production: For its time, the cgi was great. No complaints at all. Despite that, it's a weak movie that lacked the emotion of the first.

Highlight: The CGI

Main intelligence: 7

Unworthiness Level: 0

Should you watch this? Yea. If you seen the first then it's a must. If you need a movie to keep your annoying children busy, then this might work. If not, then put in some THOR Ragnarok or Infinity War. SL2 movie was great for its time and for the children of that era. Today children might develop ADHD trying to watch this because it's not an obnoxious or an immature movie. This movie has high intelligence in it, and that might be a bad thing.

Please watch this movie.

Overall, `Stuart Little 2' is better than the original; I'll give it 3/5 stars –

[MovieAddict2016 · 6/10 · 26 February 2003]

"Stuart Little 2"

`Stuart Little 2' it the follow-up to the 1999 hit `Stuart Little,' which had, at the time, made the most money for a non-Disney computer-animated film. Well, `Stuart Little,' based on the good children's book by E.B. White, was unfortunately nothing good or great – at all. M. Night Shyamalan, who brought us `The Sixth Sense' and `Signs,' surprisingly wrote it; needless to say `Stuart Little' was his worst film.

Now, a few months back, in 2002, `Stuart Little 2' came out, and I caught it at a free theater.

It deals with the continuation of the Little family and their `son' Stuart (a little white mouse), who is voiced by Michael J. Fox. Hugh Laurie plays Stuart's father, Gena Davis his mother, and a REALLY annoying kid plays his brother (he's whiny).

Along with the voice cast is Nathan Lane as Snowbell the cat – Stuart's nemesis-turned-friend from the first film – Jennifer Tilly as a bird, and James Woods as a killer hawk.

`Stuart Little 2' is better than the first mainly because it is more fun. However, it is still not a great film by any standards. First, I'll point out some things I didn't like about the first:

No one seems to think it is odd that Stuart is a mouse – I know it's a children's film and it's supposed to be like that, but a BIT of credibility would have been nice.

The whole thing with him being a mouse – it was trying to give us a preachy message that looks don't count and what's on the inside does. This is true, but the film preaches it the whole way through and it gets old.

Now, `II' carries a lot of those traits, but not as much. It is more of an adventure, not a sappy film with an underlying message. That is why I enjoyed it more.

I think it's a bit sad that Michael J. Fox has not been in a single live-action film since his leave from `Spin City' (save a cameo in an independent film). I feel sorry for him because I have always enjoyed his performances – he was perfect for `Back to the Future,' and he even made horrible films like `Teen Wolf' fun to watch. That is why I am sad that the only thing I can hear from him nowadays is his voice coming out of the mouth of a mouse. Not only that, but all the animated films he's been in are AWFUL (`Atlantis' was one of the worst of 2001).

Nathan Lane is an enjoyable actor, and he fits Snowbell quite well. I think that he was definitely the perfect choice for the fluffy cat.

And as for James Woods…he was great. I have always enjoyed his performances in film as well, and seeing him as a hawk was a bit more than odd; but at the same time it was refreshingly fun.

Overall, `Stuart Little 2' is better than the original; I'll give it 3/5 stars –

John Ulmer

...little hey, little ho.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 5/10 · 23 December 2020]

'Stuart Little 2 (2002)' is a more straight-forward kid-friendly caper than its predecessor, with several high-flying set-pieces and a stronger focus on the sort of adventures you'd expect from a CG/live-action hybrid. As such, it's actually more entertaining, even if it isn't quite as focused from a narrative point of view. The story is enjoyable enough for what it is and the flick does a good job of making you care about its characters. Nathan Lane as Snowbell is a real highlight; he provides the piece with a lot of its most memorable moments and even provokes a few chuckles along the way. Overall, the affair is a decent effort. It's relatively enjoyable on occasion, but it isn't massively compelling as a whole. 5/10.