Stuart Little 3: Call of the Wild (2005 Video) User Reviews

For the very young kids only

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 29 December 2013]

Stuart Little and the family are spending their summer vacation at a Lake Garland cabin. Stuart can't wait to strike out and have an adventure in the woods, but everybody is against it. Then Brooke tells them that there is a Beast in the woods, and he likes to eat cats. The creatures of the forest all cower at the feet of the Beast. Stuart befriends a skunk named Reeko (Wayne Brady) as he seeks adventures in the woods.

This is just a shadow of its past. There is nothing left other than a poorly drawn computer animated straight to video movie. At least most of the actors return to voice their characters. But it's really not watchable for adult. This is strictly cheap entertainment for the very young set.

Carnivores are Evil?

[onward-1 · 4/10 · 31 March 2006]

Consider the wolves, reduced to mere caricatures of evil, in Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Consider the leopard from Disney's animated Tarzan, who was simply trying to survive. Consider the hyenas of The Lion King; science tells us that hyenas are successful hunters and caring parents within their pack, and yet here they've been reduced to stereotype; mangy, miserable poachers.

Now comes "The Beast" of Stuart Little 3. Her habitat is shrinking, her food has fled the encroachment of human civilization, her forests either destroyed or filled with the sounds and smells of ATVs and chainsaws. She herself has probably been hunted, running for her life from baying dogs and humans who only want to destroy her because she would look good on a wall.

But even through all this, she is less of a carnivore than her real-world cousins would be. She offers her potential prey a way out. Bring her food, and you may live. She may indeed feel some disdain for the "lesser" animals she deals with, but she might be forgiven, considering the life she's lead.

Indeed, she could be the tragic hero of this opus. She defends the last vest ages of The Really Wild, while her forest is altered and destroyed to make way for scout camps, roads, condos, subdivisions and strip malls, vanquished tellingly by a mouse who thinks he's human and a cat who has forgotten his catness.

Yes, this video is for children, but children learn from what they experience. What are we teaching them? Quietly, I root for The Beast.

Vacation presents a call of the wild.

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 13 July 2012]

School is out for the summer and the Little family are ready to vacation in the forest of Lake Garland. Frederick(voiced by Hugh Laurie)and Elanor(voiced by Genna Davis)round up Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox)and Snowball the cat and hit the holiday road. Stuart and his dad join a group of scouts. Stuart just doesn't fit in of course; but soon has his mind occupied with finding Snowball, who is believed to be snatched by a forest creature known as the Beast(voiced by Virginia Madsen). Joining Stuart in the search is a skunk named Reeko(voiced by Wayne Brady). The first two Stuart Little films combined live action with animation. CALL OF THE WILD is obviously working with a small budget and is completely CGI, and not the best by no means. Quality is lacking, but four and five year old viewers will not be concerned. Other voices: Peter MacNicol, Nathan Lane, Robby D. Bruce, Sophia Paden and Kevin Schon.

Hugely disappointing

[nickmedford · 2/10 · 13 October 2006]

After the first two films, with their lavish sets, excellent acting, and state-of-the-art CGI, this comes as a massive disappointment. It's an ultra-low budget animation, so poorly drawn that it looks like a rough draft rather than a finished animation. The cast who played the Little family in the previous films return to voice their characters here, but the dubbing is so haphazard that you'll swear that different actors were used. The plot is paper-thin, the jokes are mostly lame, and even the very young are likely to get bored well before the end. A great shame, as the first Stuart Little in particular was a great hit with my daughter, and one of the best children's films of recent years. Stuart Little 3 is, however, best avoided.

Very Disappointed Compared to film 1 & 2 (spoilers)

[arkrandomkindness · 2/10 · 15 February 2017]

Watching this for the first time as a 20 year old with my little brother who is 11. He liked the film but even he was questioning why the film was not like 1 and 2.

I don't understand the reason or point as to why the makers of this film decided to make the 3rd film fully 3D Animation. Being in the wild and the only characters that would need 100% CGI in a LIVE ACTION film would be Stuart (already in their computer systems and design), and the Beast. All the rest would of been much easier/simple to film live surely?

The story line was a little loose. It was good but loose. The story consists of Stuart, and his family going on a scouts camping trip in the woods. Once again Stuarts Mother over panics for his protection, the jokes made are awful and not funny. Later into the film Stuart freiends a Skunk he meets which later tricks his own friend Snowbell into offering himself to the Beast. Stuart later goes on a mission to stop the Beast and his Skunk friend and the forest animals also help.

The story line could of been MUCH better done really, perhaps having a better road trip scenes would of added a bit more. Also would of been cool to of had more than one bad guy for the 3rd film finale. I was also disappointed the girl bird Margalo had not returned. Being such an important role character Stuart liked, I would of liked to see her have returned to Stuart.

Overall and to Conclude, the biggest disappointment was having the first 2 films go from LIVE ACTION to 3D Animation. Its like making Star Wars 1, 2 3 4 5 6, and then they make 7, 8 ,9 into cartoon. It just does not work, and it feels wrong, non consistent and cheesy when you watch it. The other slight appointment was again the story lacked fun, and characters from previous films.

Disappointing attempt at extending the franchise

[NWWatcher · 3/10 · 6 July 2014]

Sure, you have returning characters and even some of the key voice actors like Michael J. Fox, Hugh Laurie and Gina Davis. They even bring in Wayne Brady, Peter MacNicol and Virginia Madsen to help fill in the list of stars. You'd think with names like that you could easily create a respectable movie. Unfortunately, name recognition doesn't help a poor execution.

Probably one of the biggest issues is that they left the live action combined with CGI format of the previous 2 films. That alone makes me think this shouldn't qualify as a 'sequel'. This film, to me, seems to be hastily thrown together, reminiscent of the type of animation used by kid's television shows - the ones that try to crank out weekly cartoons just to fill time slots. Unfortunately, it hardly lives up to the success of the previous 2 movies. Combine that with a story that's so cliché as well as basically stolen from every other 'summer camp' movie made, you can probably predict the path of this film within the first 10 minutes. It just wasn't worth the time it took to make this film.

I know some reviewers gave thumbs up to the voice actors, but I have to ask why. I will say that MJF did do well as Stuart, but the others were just, well, boring. Other than adding their names to the package so you can hope to sell more copies, I really don't see why you couldn't have saved money by going with some unknown folks. Honestly, it wouldn't have made a difference in the final product.

For me, quality kids shows - whether live action or animated, will be able to hold the attention of not only kids, but the adults that sometimes find themselves accompanying their children while watching them. This film simply couldn't do that. Maybe it's just that the movie is so reminiscent of many other kids films, completely lacking in any kind of originality.

If you have very young children (maybe 3-5), they would probably enjoy this simply because it's animated. But for older children (and the adults that may have to watch with them), I would say it's likely a waste of their time.

What is this?!

[RightonNicole · 1/10 · 1 March 2014]

After seeing the first two movies and watching the hell out of them as a kid, I heard quite a few years later that there was a 3rd movie and got excited but also a little confused as into why I had never heard of the 3rd installment to the Stuart Little film series. I now know why..it is an embarrassment! I couldn't even watch half of the movie because it was just plain terrible, I probably only watched about 15-20 minutes of it and switched it over to another channel.

Obviously the main question is why the hell this was in crappy CGI and not a mix of live action with good CGI like it was the first and second movie. I don't think anyone knows this answer but to be honest it would probably be due to low budget and this movie's purpose was to try and cash in on money. The animation looked unfinished though I do see what angle they were trying to go for, but for a MOVIE? And a prequel at that, it's just not good enough. This type of animation would be better for a TV show not a movie.

Though I have to say that it's good to hear Hugh Laurie and M.J Fox back as their roles though obviously not all of the original actors could be in this film, I say they dodged a bullet. The voice acting (from what I heard) was actually good and didn't disappoint me, so I have no real issues with them.

From what I saw this movie was a typical family trip that goes wrong in some way and that there are a lot of side stories such as George seemingly taking a liking to a girl at the camp, Snowbell getting scared of a myth and Stuart...doing something (I dunno I never got far enough into the film to find out), and Mr and Mrs Little..disappearing in convience of the plot.

Overall, if you are a Stuart Little fan then just plain skip this! It is a disgrace to the franchise and I will hopefully be forgetting about it by tomorrow when I FINALLY see The Lego Movie in the cinema tomorrow. Just plain skip skip skip!

It's really for the kiddies, but is it?

[patrick-green · 2/10 · 25 August 2006]

Stuart Little is back in an all awful sequel and this time he's a boy scout. It's funny how nature is seen in this movie as a playground meant to be tame and fun for city people with no idea of how to distinguish a pine tree from a mushroom. The cougar portrays of course the forces of evil who must be tracked down and vanquished by a goody-goody lab rat and a cat who acts more like an overgrown guinea-pig than a cat. The parents are as usual a goofy, happy pair with the father who sees vicious, vampire skunks and rabid chipmunks behind every single slimy toadstool and the mother who smiles and cleans up the mess without complaining.

An OK kids movie...

[The_Wagon · 6/10 · 11 March 2006]

Stuart Little 3 has flaws. The animation. I don't like the animation. Ultimate Avengers is better. Way better. But Stuart Little 3 has good things about it, too. It starts with the Little family going on a camping trip. They drive there, Stuart has some adventures, and fights "The Beast". No, not the X-Men character, but...well....I'm not gonna spoil it for you! But I'll give you hint of what "The Beast" is. It's not a flounder! So that eliminates all the flounders of the world. What animal could it be? Watch this movie and find out! Now, I honestly thought this would suck, but it didn't. It was a nice little movie that's fun for the whole family. The first two were better, but this one was still a good movie. So just pop it in the DVD player and watch. They might make a Stuart Little 4. Who knows? 6/10.

A very mediocre film

[lisafordeay · 1/10 · 26 February 2014]

So I got this with the Stuart Little Box set collection that I got for a bargain and let me tell ya it was so bad. The first movie was cute and adorable I loved the first movie,the second one again like the first one was CGI animation/live action was cute but this one was so mediocre.

So what is it about well for starters its a computer animated movie and its about Stuart Little and his family who go off camping away in some place and Stuart meets a skunk who tells him about the beast and he befriends the skunk. But is the skunk using Stuart or is he really a good friend for real?

So why is it bad. Well the animation is terrible,the story is awful and why didn't the original actor for George wasn't involved in this film.

Also why in computer animation and not live action like the first two movies and what was up with the skunk doing a rap song UGH it was so bad.

My advice watch the first two and avoid this one at all costs.

good movie for little kids

[mzatzman0327 · 8/10 · 26 February 2006]

this movie is for kids ages 3-10. it is not for older children or adults. children in the proper age group will really like this movie as they know the main characters already and the story is at their level. It should not be called the third movie in the series as it is an animated movie not meant for all audiences. My young children enjoyed it much more than their parents. This looks like a trial for a TV animated series and is something you would expect to find on television. It is not a Disney quality movie but it still appeals to young kids who relate to the characters, especially Stuart Little, who is voiced by Michael J. Fox.He does a great job as usual.

What is This, Sequel or Midquel?

[Hollywood_Yoda · 6/10 · 23 February 2008]

I must admit that this film was very well animated compared to other animated films of the same time frame. It looks more realistic, which compared to the first two films is excellent. And the voice-over work in this film is by far excellent. Most of the cast from the first two returned, with the exception of Jonathan Lipnicki. But Wayne Brady's voice appears in the film as Reeko the skunk. Thats a plus.

Some of the scenes though, very much reminded me of scenes from earlier Disney films. For instance, the lioness on the rock is reminiscent of Pride Rock from "The Lion King." And the name of the skunk is Reeko, very similar to Meeko from "Pocahontas." Even the forest animals are very similar to those in "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Bambi." The animation. although well done, seems to be a rip off of Disney films.

After careful consideration, I gave this film a 6.

Stuart Little 3: Call of the Wild

[jboothmillard · 2/10 · 17 August 2013]

The first film based on the popular book by E.B. White was good fun, the second film was okay, and you would expect the third film to be the same concept, live action and computer animation combined, but no, the makers opted to go straight to DVD and just have it all animated. Basically it is the summer time and school is out for Stuart Little (Michael J. Fox), the white mouse adopted adopted into the (human) Little family, and he and his brother George (Corey Padnos) are going near Lake Garland to a lakeside cabin to spend a vacation and join the "Lake Scouts". Troopmaster Bickle (Peter MacNicol) is obviously a little inexperienced, so Stuart and George's father Frederick (Hugh Laurie) assists him teaching the kids the various outdoor and survival skills, while Mrs. Eleanor Little (Geena Davis) tries to mend the old cabin. Stuart being small obviously struggles to keep up with George and the other scouts, and getting lost in the woods he makes friends with a skunk named Reeko (Wayne Brady), who has been getting on the nerves of the creature feared by the other woodland creatures, the Beast, who demands food from them. To satisfy the Beast and give himself some time to get away Reeko, being a good liar convinces the Little's family cat Snowbell (Kevin Schon) that he is a guest of a big party with the animals, but of course he is being led into a trap to become a meal for the Beast (Candyman's Virginia Madsen), who turns out to be a lioness. Stuart being brave and having learnt all he needs from the scouts is the only one who can save Snowbell, and Reeko feeling great guilt and confessing his mistake helps him, and in the end the Beast is captured and taken back to the zoo, and the Littles return home after an interesting vacation. Also starring Sophia Paden as Bunny, Rino Romano as Monty and Tara Strong as Brooke. It is good Fox, Laurie and Davis returned to their parts, but Nathan Lane and Jonathan Lipnicki are missing, but it doesn't matter as the story is very predictable, the computer animation is rubbish and looks like a cheap video game or something, and the family feel has lost any previous charm, do not bother with this terrible animated fantasy adventure. Pretty poor!

Cheap, awful animation

[rhinoslot · 1/10 · 2 February 2019]

I'm amazed the official actors were willing to do the voices due this film. The animation is abysmal, so cheap!!! The plot, the music, everything feels quickly thrown together for a straight to video movie. Very low quality.

back to basics on the animation front

[FFAxDAVID · 4/10 · 10 December 2005]

as kids story's go,this ones no different-something happens,hero has to fix it(save/find/insert relevant problem here),has abit of trouble on way but alls OK in end-that much am pretty sure can give away without being accused of mentioning spoilers,in fact that could probably describe any child orientated film.If your kids like animated movies,this will make them happy regardless what i think.On other hand though,if they expect anything different on the animation front,they will be disappointed-most of the animation could have been done just as decent(or badly,depending on point of view,) in the 50's,in fact it looks like they may even have had that in mind intentionally when they made it for all i know.

To summarize its an OK film for kids but i think they forgot what made Stewart Little films liked in the 1st place,and thats decent animated characters in a real world environment,and since this is all animated i cannot see the same appeal being prevalent.

Awful

[dickinsonjason-34081 · 1/10 · 8 July 2020]

This One Was Absolutely Awful It Was Very Boring Didn't Like it at all

Call Of The Mediocre

[sarcasm_for_free · 4/10 · 18 August 2020]

This cartoon second sequel to the original was made direct-to-DVD due to the financial disappointment which was SL2, and after watching it you'll probably wish they hadn't bothered.

The majority of the voices from the live-action series are there, but the animation is ugly to say the least and the plot is constantly interrupted by annoying musical interludes...

...None more so dire than the one sung by an irritating new character called Rico, an obnoxious skunk who's solo number reminds me of the rapping dog from The Legend Of The Titanic. If you're curious what I mean by that, don't be. For the sake of your soul.

In any case, aside from a few amusing one-liners from the always loveable Snowbell, this is an infinitely missable cash-in deservedly destined for obscurity. In a world where Disney and Pixar exist, why bother? 4/10

Just A-OK

[jamnetwork · 3/10 · 21 October 2018]

Stuart Little 3 features a richly layered performance from Tara Strong, but that may be this dour threequel's sole distinctive feature.

I didn't like the cartoon version...

[RosanaBotafogo · 6/10 · 2 November 2021]

I didn't like the cartoon version, the story is good, but it would be more interesting with real characters. I didn't like the cartoon version, the story is good, but it would be more interesting with real characters... I didn't like the cartoon version...

What Is This!?

[vengeance20 · 2/10 · 19 September 2022]

Saw this on DVD not long after it came out back in 2006 & knew from the cover it wouldn't be nearly as good as the first 2 films.

The film sees the family retreat to a lakeside cabin for a holiday, but Snowbell gets kidnapped by a beast in the forest & so Stuart must rescue him.

I found the film to be pretty bad. For 1, it's not the live action set up we saw in the first 2 films, it's just cheap animation substituted for live action. You can tell the series has went south when they go for this route & that it is too short in runtime length. Not to mention the lack luster story which is typical of Straight-To-DVD Films like this one.

I don't remember all to much of this film, but I remember it being pretty naff & not that great. It's annoying as the first 2 films were great & then Stuart Little 3 comes along & the franchise just went south fast.

The only good I can see is the usual voice actors doing well with what little (no pun intended) they are given, yes, I said voice actors, not actual actors because it's an animation, sadly.

Overall, it's a pretty dire sequel & not one I'd recommend you watch, if you're expecting it to be anywhere near as good as the first 2 films which are gold in comparison to this film which pales drastically.

2/10.

Great animation adventure

[nethy-nho · 9/10 · 27 May 2019]

Searching, I discovered that because costs, they prefered do a animation movie rather than a live action, but for me what metter is the story, and the story is very good, they leave that house and goes to the jungle, and it's pretty amazing see this new place, the movie like always, does a great message about friendship, the new characters are cool, and all them have great scenes, i liked of soundtrack too, and the movie it's very funny to watch.

Sadly rather charmless

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 8 September 2011]

Having thoroughly enjoyed the first two films, I was looking forward to Stuart Little 3. Sadly though, in my opinion it was rather charmless and very disappointing. The only reasons why I did't rate it any lower are the sweet and memorable music and the voice acting, Stuart is still appealing, Kevin Schon is not as good as Nathan Lane but is nonetheless good as Snowbell and Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie are excellent. However, the lip movements are barely in sync with the voices and the animation has a rough and unfinished quality to it. The script is weak, with the more poignant moments(or moments that strived to be that rather) rather over-sentimental and the jokes due to poor timing falling flat, and the story is rather bland and thin and doesn't come close to the charm and heart the first two movies have. Stuart still appeals and Snowbell is okay, but the other characters don't have the same sparkle and are perhaps underused as a result. Overall, charmless and disappointing. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Nothing Special

[bigverybadtom · 4/10 · 5 September 2022]

Stuart Little and his family are out vacationing at a lake in a rented cabin. Unlike the combination of live action and animation of the first two movies, the whole thing is entirely animated.

Basically the story is about Stuart and friends finding and having an adventure with the local animals, with the villain this time known as The Beast. What to do about him, since he wants to eat the animal cast? In the end Stuart finds the way to get rid of his threat.

This story is still good for the kids. Nothing special but good enough not to bore or dismay them, and there is no potty humor to worry about. Certainly better than, say, Barney the Dinosaur.

Stuart Little strikes back

[quodraticequation · 1/10 · 2 July 2022]

This movie is the cinematic equivalent of diarrhoea. When the universe was being constructed, the God in charge of all this clapped his hands together and said "Listen lads, let's make a species that can create 'Stuart Little 3'."

I would like to apologise on behalf of the human race for the existence of this film, and to those inconvenienced by its mere existence.

Instead, watch the previous two masterpieces of cinematic interest.