"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
`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