Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Jim C OK, it's not the Mickey of the early to mid 1930s...or is it? Best way I can describe this cartoon is "1930s fun with a late 20th century sense of humor". Mickey's been a difficult character ever since the censors stopped letting him pull on cow's udders, kick cats, and spit...and I think this cartoon manages to bring back his harmless "bad boy" side. Mickey's always been a reflection of everyman, and in this fast-paced short, he's a typical guy of the time...forgetting his girlfriend's anniversary, jumping at scatter-brained get rich quick schemes, but ultimately coming out on top. I know others have criticized his character in this short, but as a cartoonist myself who is very familiar with Mickey's filmography from "Plane Crazy" on, I thought it really quite good. My only criticisms: (1) the backgrounds: wouldn't it be great to have used the soft focus, muted with gray style of the classic 30s Disney shorts (like "the Band Concert", "Clock Cleaners", etc.? It makes the characters stand out so much better. (2) the Pace: as others have stated, the story is paced more like a Roger Rabbit short or Tex Avery than typical Disney. I'm not complaining about this, but as I felt with "Mickey's Christmas Carol" and "Prince & the Pauper" there was far too much "plot" for the film's length. Admittedly, modern audiences, used to MTV/music video editing may find this less a problem. Overall though, a good effort, and any cartoon that continues Mickey's stardom into another century and introduces him to yet another generation is a good thing.PS: "Julius" is Black Pete/Peg-leg Pete/Pete...the cat-ish hulk who has been Mickey's nemesis from the first cartoon...I think many folks missed this. Also, the tune Mickey whistles in the film is "Steamboat Bill" -- very cool insider touch!

IMarriedBritneySpears I remember seeing this cartoon attached to, I believe, George of the Jungle. I was in my very early teens at the time, and had been a big fan of the old Mickey cartoons since I had owned several on video as a child. But this frightened me. I was 13, and frightened. The old Mickey cartoons had charm, this new thing was fast paced, way too off the wall for a Mickey cartoon, and didn't have any of the Disney Cartoon vibe you would imagine one should have if you are a fan of the old stuff. They were trying so hard to reinvent Mickey, be funny, have the kids of gags that were not typically Disney, and going for more of an adult audience and I do not think it worked AT ALL. I might watch this again one day since it is out on one of the Disney Treasures DVD sets, but it will probably frighten me again even though I'm in my 20's.

rbverhoef You can see and feel in every second of this cartoon that it is a pretty new Mickey Mouse cartoon. It looks and feels to fresh. Mickey (voice of Wayne Allwine) has forgotten his anniversary with Minnie (voice of Russi Taylor) and has to make up for it. By accident he promises her a trip to Hawaii that will cost him a thousand dollars. Pluto (voice of Bill Farmer) shows him an ad where he can make that kind of money. When he arrives on the location he meets a Dr. Frankenollie (voice of Frasier's Kelsey Grammer) and he becomes a test person for a brain switch. He switches brains with a big monster (voice of Jim Cummings) who falls in love with Minnie. Of course Mickey has to solve this problem.This short has some nice touches. We see how Mickey is playing a video game where he is Dopey and he has to fight the evil Queen from 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'. Another fine touch is when Mickey shows the monster a picture of him and we see the black and white Mickey from his early cartoons. Besides those moments I didn't think this cartoon was very good. The 'Frankenstein' story is nice but that's it. Personally I think this could have been a lot better.

Spleen "Runaway Brain" was an attempt (or so the Disney studio announced before its release) to recapture the spirit of the earlier Mickey Mouse cartoons - not the series involving the dull suburbanite which fizzled out with "The Simple Things" in 1953, but the lively everymouse of the 1930s. But here's what they forgot: the banal Mickey Mouse cartoons c.1940-1953 were ALSO an attempt to recapture the spirit of the earlier Mickey Mouse cartoons. And THAT was an attempt made by the very same animators, writers etc. who had worked on the originals not long before. (The original directors, admittedly, had mostly either left the studio or gone on to work on features. The director of the later Mickeys was usually Charles Nichols, who HADN'T been responsible for the earlier ones, which makes him an easy target for blame - but some of his Mouseless cartoons, like "The Legend of Coyote Rock" and "Wonder Dog", show that he was a formidable talent, if not by the standards of his day, then certainly by the standards of ours.) If THESE people couldn't resurrect Mickey Mouse, what made Chris Bailey, with no prior credits at all (at least according to the IMDb), think that HE'D be able to?The truth is that the charm of Mickey's earlier cartoons, while undeniable, is highly elusive. In one of his last great triumphs, the Oscar-winning "Brave Little Tailor" (1938), Mickey battles a giant, in a climax that ISN'T played for laughs, even though it has some comic touches. Ditto "Runaway Brain". But the danger of the earlier cartoon is real; the danger here is completely fake. The Gothic mad science of "The Mad Doctor" (1933) or "The Worm Turns" (1937) was not violated by the inclusion of a giant cartoonish rodent; here, no particular atmospheric effect even gets a chance to establish itself. The sometimes over-deliberate pacing of the earlier cartoons somehow failed to hurt them in the least. Here, the overly zippy pacing is fatal. What's wrong with "Runaway Brain"? In a sense, EVERYTHING. It's a complete failure.In order to create GOOD new Mickey Mouse cartoons, Disney will have to set up a semi-autonomous short subjects unit and force it to churn out, say, twelve cartoons a year, of whatever kind strikes the animators' fancy, and hope against hope that in some years' time there will emerge a heroic cartoon director who feels strong enough to tackle the Mouse. Such a short cartoons unit would of course make a guaranteed, substantial loss, EVERY year, and I don't blame Disney for baulking at the idea. But it's the only way.