There's no question that Stuart Little is a cute little rodent.
He's so cute you just want to scoop him up and hide him away
before Richard Gere shoves the little guy up his ass. It's just
too bad that the rest of this movie isn't any more than cute.
It's the kind of shit that nobody gets angry about, but that
all those dumbfucks who collect "Precious Moments"
shit will want collectibles of. In other words, it's the hollow,
synthetic cuteness that only morons buy into. This isn't to say
it won't make a ton because we all know there are plenty of morons
Stuart, voiced by Michael J. Fox, is a mouse. He is adopted
by the Littles (Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie), much to the disappointment
of their cat Snowbell (Nathan Lane) and son, a butt-ugly Jonathan
Lipnicki. Stuart has a hard time fitting in, but he finally does
bond with Lipnicki because he helps him win some sort of rich-kid
model sailboat race. The problem, though, is with the cat, who
can't stand having a mouse as a master and wants Stuart rubbed
Snowbell turns to a mobster cat named Smokey, who has Stuart
stolen by two other mice who owe him a favor. Soon, the family
learns of the scheme and Smokey tries to kill Stuart. Stuart
is chased all over Central Park by lots of cats. This is when
Snowbell conveniently gets a conscience. Snowbell fights the
other cats, rescues Stuart and delivers him home to the Littles.
What makes this movie almost tolerable is that it doesn't
spend its entire story with everyone's eyes going "Boooiiiing!"
when they see a talking mouse. Usually, Hollywood gets so excited
about talking animals that they think that we'll all just shit
our pants when we see it. In "Stuart Little," it's
just accepted that he's a mouse and very little the comedy revolves
around wacky double-takes.
The animation of Stuart is pretty fucking fantastic. I sat
there the whole time trying to see his flaws, and there are a
few. But overall, it's the best damn representation of a mouse
I've ever seen. He looks like an honest-to-God emotive and talking
rodent. Even his little eyes take shape when he cries or gets
happy. It's just too fucking bad he's the only interesting character
in the movie.
In fact, the rest of the characters are as boring as dogshit
you promised to pick up but never got around to. For some unknown
reason, Director Rob Minkoff has specifically chosen to make
every human devoid of any personality. It's all supposed to be
this witty deadpan, I think, but the gag falls flat on its ass
and we're left watching a cast of "Stepford Wives."
To a man, the cast gives their lines no inflection, and their
faces give off nothing more than a predictably small range of
emotion. They just blend into the wallpaper.
The only actor who stands out is Lipnicki, and that's only
because he sucks donkey dick. He's whiny and precocious in every
scene. His scenes with the mouse are obviously of a kid talking
to nothing, with a mouse put in later. Plus, he's an ugly little
prick, like Froggy on "Little Rascals" but without
the dirty T-shirt or charm. The movie tries to cast him in this
cute-kid light, and I think we're supposed to be wowed by him.
Sorry, this kid's got about two movies left in him, then ten
years of obscurity before he reappears as a drug addict who robs
a liquor store.
The cats, who have much larger parts than necessary, must
be there purely for the joy of all those fucking weirdos who
buy kitty calendars and crack up whenever they see that "Hang
in there" poster. There ain't nobody else but a fucking
cat-lover who will think it's cute when they start acting like
beat-down cliches. They're supposed to be sassy, but they're
no more sassy than Urkel on "FamilyMatters." Here's
a hint for Hollywood: a character that has been done to death
is still a cliche, even if it's in the form of a cat. For example,
the mobster who says someone is going to "sleep with the
fishes," is already crustier than a week-old condom. And
fart jokes are the result of lazy filmmaking or writers who don't
know how to write original jokes, even when it's a cat who passes
The plot is thin. How thin? Well, consider that Lipnicki wants
out of the sailboat race but his parents won't let him. Then
Stuart breaks his boats controller. Instead of being happy, the
ugly little moppet is sad. Consider that we are supposed to root
against one kid only because he wears a blazer and a sneer. Hell,
when I'm in a bad mood I wear a blazer and sneer. Consider that
Stuart and Lipnicki become friends for no apparent reason or
that I never did understand why Snowbell decided to feel sorry
for Stuart. And, consider that the parents adopt a rodent who
won't live more than a couple of years, thereby crushing their
own hearts and making their young son learn about death far too
early in life. Finally, just consider that the characters go
through the motions, but unless we automatically root for talking
animals, there's no reason for us to give a flying fuck.
When you compare this flick to "Toy Story 2" you
see all more clearly what's wrong with it. Both are digital animation
tour de forces, but one goes further to treat kids intelligently
and tell its story nearly free of cliches. The other doesn't
bother diving any deeper than the surface, because its makers
think we're not smart enough to know better. Maybe we aren't.
However, even if you don't like sappy kids' movies like this,
there still might be a reason for you to see it. That is if you
enjoy non-stop, loud and annoying soundtracks. The overly-loud,
treacly soundtrack is wall-to-wall. I think it's supposed to
buoy the bland on-screen action, but most of the time, I swear
to God, it had nothing to do with the movie.
Two fingers for "Stuart Little." I'll give
it five fingers for any dipshits who actually like going
to Hallmark Greeting Cards stores. For the rest of us, though,
go see "Toy Story 2" again.