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.

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.

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

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.