1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Little Creatures Pilsener - Little Creatures Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Little Creatures PilsenerLittle Creatures Pilsener

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
71
okay

23 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 23
Reviews: 23
rAvg: 2.92
pDev: 12.33%
Wants: 0
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Little Creatures Brewing Company visit their website
Australia

Style | ABV
Czech Pilsener |  4.60% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: rastaman on 09-02-2004)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Ratings: 23 | Reviews: 23 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by foles:
Photo of foles
2.23/5  rDev -23.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

It pains me to say this (given i love the pale ale), but the pilsner really disappoints on tap at the brewery in Freo.

Very one dimensional, no Czech hop character whatsoever, a rough grassy profile, and very little to distinquish it from macro lagers. In fact there are some macros I would much rather have.

Maybe LC is trying to cater for the crowd that likes poor/bland tasting lagers?

foles, Aug 31, 2008
More User Reviews:
Photo of rastaman
2.42/5  rDev -17.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Tap- Australian Hotel, Sydney-Extremely pale yellow appearance. Aroma is slightly honeyed, lemony and hoppy, but very faint. very light on the palate, with some Ok flavours shining through, but not enough. in my opinion. easy to drink thoug, if a bit boring.

rastaman, Sep 02, 2004
Photo of Tagger24
2.8/5  rDev -4.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Had it on tap at the brewery itself.

Appearance - A bit darker than say a European Pils but not overly dark. Not as carbonated as I expected it with a very thin head that disappeared quickly and left very little lacing.

Smell - Bland. Some hops in there and a bit citrusy. Nothing really to write home about.

Taste - Dominated by the hops. A slight citrus/lemon flavour from the smell was present. Even the hops were one-dimensional. Dry finish with that distinct aftertaste of LC brews. Not inspiring.

Mouthfeel - Thin and watery but less carbonated than a macro.

Drinkability - I'd get bored of this too easily. Just not enough character. Hopped beers like a pils should have some sort of complexity in the flavour and this beer doesn't have that. Its definitely geared towards a macro lager drinking crowd.

Tagger24, Nov 14, 2008
Photo of CrazyDavros
2.68/5  rDev -8.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours gold with a large diminishing head.
Nose shows lots of grassy Euro hops with some biscuity, bready malt underneath. Later on the grassy notes fade, revealing floral hops and some sweet light malt.
Flavours are more focussed towards the malt with a prominent bready character.
Body is light, fitting the style, but the carbonation is pretty damn high.

CrazyDavros, Jul 02, 2010
Photo of Kulrak
2.9/5  rDev -0.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Pours a light golden color with very little head, which fades away very quickly. Smells lightly yeasty and very faintly hoppy. Taste is pretty sweet, some hop flavor, very little bitterness. Finishes a little sour, but not too bad. Mouthfeel is a little watery, with some tongue scraping. It's drinkable, but nothing really special.

Kulrak, Oct 28, 2006
Photo of DaveFL1976
3.2/5  rDev +9.6%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Ehh, it's OK. Take it or leave it, I guess.

This beer is nowhere near the kind of quality of the Pale Ale. I think this is an attempt to grab the taste buds (or lack thereof) of the average macro drinker. A clean, crisp beer but just no oomph. Little malt, barely any hops. It's not bad. It's not good. It's just there.

Try harder, guys, please!

DaveFL1976, Jan 02, 2006
Photo of Macca
2.88/5  rDev -1.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

It pours a bright golden with a good head. Something weird on the nose - cut grass? and some floral hops. Some nice pils crispness in there and it is light bodied. There is something just not quite right with this beer. Not unpleasant but just a bit disconcerting. Can't put my finger on it.

Macca, Nov 20, 2008
Photo of WHROO
3/5  rDev +2.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Clean clear looking Pils...average head retention with little lacing...
Not a very exciting brew...I was hoping the taste would have improved on the smell but nope.
Little fruity & citrus in both aroma & taste, also as expected a hit of bitter, but really all in all not too tasty. Little to thin, watery & too carbonated in mouthfeel. We backed this up against a Pilsner Urquall - maybe a bad move in hindsight! Very average on all accounts!
So much character from Little Creatures, yet this lacked big time...

WHROO, Oct 26, 2008
Photo of juju7
3.25/5  rDev +11.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Firstly, I wouldn't call this a Czech Pils but anyway...Pours with a weak head, a bright gold body. A floral, hoppy nose with some sulphur in the background. Pretty typical of German style pils. Decent weight in the body with soft bitterness on the back. Undoubtedly the weakest link in the LC chain but a decent beer.

juju7, Apr 28, 2009
Photo of IHasaFlavaFlav
3.68/5  rDev +26%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

A - Pour a light golden colour, got a lot of head at the start but it faded to almost nothing.

S - Not entirely unpleasant, just I can't quite figure out what I'm smelling.

T - Crisp clean pilsener. Nothing daring, just drinkable beer.

M - Loads of carbonation, cleansing.

D - Very drinkable, wouldn't stand up to most meals though.

IHasaFlavaFlav, Aug 15, 2009
Photo of hefevice
3.4/5  rDev +16.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Crystal clear light straw in colour, with a small white head that disappeared pretty quickly. Not much in the way of aroma, very slight skunk and a little flowery hops. Flavour is crisp, very subtle hints of hops, with a mildly bitter finish overlaid with I feel is a pleasant toasty malt character. Mouth is light and soft - quite complementary to the subtle flavours. Very easy to drink but probably a little light on in the flavour stake.

hefevice, Aug 07, 2005
Photo of koolk
2.93/5  rDev +0.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Pours a very odd dark yellow colour that has no head and low carbonation, of which makes it look like a urine sample...not a great start.

Very simple and light aroma, with no hard hop aroma, just some very light sweet malt notes.

Flavours on the palate leave a lot to be desired. Some simple honey/winey flavours on the front that are rather sweet, with a little bit of bitterness with again no apparent hop flavours. Has great creamy mouthfeel - that is about the biggest draw of this brew.

Very disapointing. Seeing as the LC Pale Ale gets a lot of us excited (and the roger is also a decent brew) its as shame to see this producer going down the crap pils direction. Two notes 1 - want a great pils, try emersons. 2 - use the knowledge and knowhow to make a great beer with some style and flavour. I reckon they could do wonders with a darker/heavier beer, but alas we will just have to wait and see. In the mean time stick to the rogers and pale.

koolk, Jan 12, 2005
Photo of vancurly
3/5  rDev +2.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Tasted this at the Australian Beer Festival.

Compared to its stable mates, this one is disappointing. A bit too malt-driven for the style intended. I would like to to see a greater representation of the appropriate Czech Nobility...

Better examples going around in Australia at the moment, and as I've mentioned, better LC brands going around also.

Must try harder...

vancurly, Oct 01, 2006
Photo of laituegonflable
2.9/5  rDev -0.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Pours a pale gold colour - almost looked silvery coming out of the bottle. Head is sparse fuzz and also sort of not a head but rather a thin film of bubbles. Slow carbonation, little lace. Looks like a dull impersonation of beer.

Nose is pungent, rather adjuncty, really. Strong whiff of some breakfast cereal grain, along with some corn aroma and a slight hoppy twang, kind of citrusy, but not very strong. It's OK balanced, but doesn't have much character to it.

Tastes OK, a lot of grain throughout, with a bran flavour on the front blending with some sweet corn for the mid and onto the back, which is sweet with honeyed notes. Hops are apparent but never really the driving force, mostly phenolic with medicinal notes on the mid and on the hang which is left after the finish. Bitterness hits at the wrong time on the mid, and doesn't clean up the palate, leaves a harsh astringency trailing behind the mostly sweet back palate.

Mouthfeel is decent, fair amount of zing from the bubbles, not full but certainly not thin. Sticky, if anything.

I have to admit to being slightly disappointed with this. Given the brilliance of their pale ale I'd think that Little Creatures could handle hopping a bit better. In this they just bite the wrong parts of the palate and send the whole flavour profile off kilter. It does have a fair punch though, for which I should be grateful. Still, not the best of the LC selection.

laituegonflable, Aug 26, 2009
Photo of BeerNutta
2.38/5  rDev -18.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Had this at the BEERTOPIA beer show.

Don't know if it was because I was tired by the end or what. But I didn't think too much of this beer. If anything, I thought the hopiness of the beer kicked the crap outta me. NOT GOOD.

A = Pale Straw colour. No foam head.

S = HOP. HOP and yup more HOP.

T = See above.

M = Moderate carbonation made it go down ok. Too bad the HOP kick in the teeth made the beer a bit unpleasant.

D = Wouldn't be one I'd sought out.

BeerNutta, Aug 13, 2005
Photo of rowey77
3.63/5  rDev +24.3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Great beer, tried at little creatures brewery in Fremantle.. Great with food and poors a great head. Full of flavour but not to harsh on the pallet. Recommend for a beer with dinner or even just a social after work drink.. Have tried in bottle form and beer is just as good as on tap.

rowey77, Jul 15, 2010
Photo of ADZA
2.55/5  rDev -12.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Well after having to consume my first middi of macro swill for ages i remembered why i drink MIRCO brews these days and i asked the barman to see his bottled beers on offer and to my suprise they had this one which really suprised me as they didnt have its better looking cousin that introduced to me the world of microbrews but was stoked to see some sense behind the buying powers of this bar as i havnt had this for ages i remembered when it came out after having tried their pale ale i thought this would be right up my alley and back then i was dissapointed but here goes its second chance,it pours a pale straw colour with nice carbonation that leaves a one finger bubbling head that leaves average lacing,the smell is very grainy,skunky with some slight floral hops on nose aswell right at the end,it has a syrupy start on the mouthfeel which finishes quite light with hardly any dominant taste being present but on saying that its far from well balanced by any means and unfortunately this brew is how i remembered a big dissapointment with big tastes of watery grain finished with a feint hop taste and would avoid and definately try its better looking cousin the beer that started micro brewing in Australia LC's Pale Ale.

ADZA, Sep 29, 2009
Photo of diablo14
3/5  rDev +2.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

i walked into the GB hotel in richmond and saw this on tap and immediately started to foam at the mouth. alas my excitement was not backed up by the beer itself.

im not going to go into too much details about this pilsener for reasons i shall go into later. a word of warning to anyone who gets the chance to try this, do not expect something in the same ballpark as the classic pale ale. i know its a different style but it has nowhere near the character or complexity ive come to expect from these guys. wasnt a bad beer by any means, it just didnt taste much like a pilsener. then i found out why. they are not using saaz hops in this beer yet. when i asked the barman why he was unsure, but it was something along the lines of 'they are still testing'. i know ive been hearing about this beer for a long time and waiting for it to materialise. but id still prefer to wait till they have it all together before i get into it.

i expect this beer to improve markedly over coming tastings, and for that reason im going to reserve my final appraisal until then. for now, you can drink it ok, but really, a pilsener without saaz? whats the world coming to?

diablo14, Oct 06, 2004
Photo of bigalk
3.28/5  rDev +12.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured fairly flat from the bottle, head didn't last very long at all, and was flat as a tack within a minute or so.
Aroma was dominated by DMS, I guess that's probably ok, but was a little overpowering.
colour was straw yellow and perfectly bright.
I think I like this much better on tap, ice cold and foaming. I hadn't had a bottle for a while and was a little disappointed by this one

bigalk, Nov 03, 2007
Photo of jarmby1711
2.9/5  rDev -0.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

My expectations started high when this light golden beer poured with a pure white head and had plenty of carbonation.
The smell was somewhat bland with just a hint of pineapple.
The taste was faintly pineapple znd then a cloying biterness that could , depending on your mood , actually be unpleasant.
I swayed to thinking that it was ok , but I was not convinced.
Overall It was a beer that combined bitter and sour and not a great deal of refreshing attributes.
Pretty disappointing overall but given the quality of their Pale Ale it may deserve another try , come summer .

jarmby1711, Jul 28, 2005
Photo of brendan13
2.78/5  rDev -4.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

A - Pours a bright golden colour with a couple of centimetres of white head that dissipates rather quickly.
S - Some grainy notes and a vauge touch of grassy, slightly floral hops.
T - Like the smell there is some grainy malt along with some grassy & floral hops.
M - Crisp carbonation & fairly light bodied.
D - Nothing wrong with this, just not very interesting. Could technically put a few away but I'd rather drink something with a bit more character.

brendan13, Dec 01, 2007
Photo of revdrjbob
2.75/5  rDev -5.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Had this brew with Teaser, and it is still a sad reflection on what LCPA had going for it.

Poured a very pale yellow gold with a thick white foamy head, looking good.

Aroma: Citrusy/noble hops (Stirling?), followed by a light grainy maltiness. Very clean, almost German in character, apart from the hops.

Taste: Malty, with a lower bitterness than expected from the aroma. Creamy, with a slight carbonation bite on the tongue. Clean with a dry finish, that becomes grainy/corny as it warms. Sadly not a beer that I'll go out of my way to have again.

revdrjbob, Sep 27, 2005
Photo of LittleCreature
2.65/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Appearance - 3.5
An attractive pale golden colour, with what looks like a high level of carbonation. The fizzy white head poured one finger, which quickly reduced to a thin layer.

Smell - 2.0
On the plus side, there is no skunkiness whatsoever (perhaps thanks to the brown bottle). Unfortunately, there is also close to no smell whatsoever, apart from a little hops and maybe a whisper of malt.

Taste - 2.5
Crisp, dry and refreshing, as a pilsener should be. Very little flavour unfront, followed by a vague taste of grains, and a moderately bitter, rather dry finish. Little aftertaste, but leaves a nice lingering bitterness. Not too big on flavour this one.

Mouthfeel - 2.5
Relatively high carbonation gives a sharpish mouthfeel. Quite light in the mouth, but not watery.

Drinkability - 3.5
If you like your beers dry and flavourless, then this is highly drinkable. Personally I would get bored of this quickly. I usually have one pint when drinking at Little Creatures, but always move onto the other (better) beers.

OVERALL - 2.7
I used to enjoy this beer, but that was before I got onto drinking beers with real taste. As it stands, this is better than most of the dry mainstream lagers, but it is also vastly more expensive. At the same price as the brilliant Pale Ale, this is very poor value, and really doesn't qualify as a premium beer in my book.

LittleCreature, Aug 02, 2007
Little Creatures Pilsener from Little Creatures Brewing Company
71 out of 100 based on 23 ratings.