These are great Mickey Mouse cartoons. One of my favorite ones of this is the one where Mickey and Minnie are in Italy and Mickey wins Mickey over when he was alone in the boat and Minnie comes right up to it and they both sat in it and have a nice spaghetti dinner together. Those two are the luckiest mice in the world. Also I really loved the ending to the latest one which is the Hawaiian one right after the acua or whatever that spirit was called came and then Minnie comes singing the melody that Mickey was playing and Mickey sits beside her and they both sing it together which is very cute and romantic. Mickey and Minnie are the best fictional couple ever. Great cartoons here enough said.

Last time I wrote a review on this, I realized I was not critical enough and that I was too emotional. But, my statement still stands: I do not like this new "Mickey Mouse" series for a number of reasons.1. It's rushed. The stories are contrived as they often have to rely on horrifying imagery and hammered-in gross-out jokes. Because, time is money. In fact, a lot of jokes and story elements make no sense at all! Some of them are just there to make what little there is of a plot to work. (Sort of like what Roger Ebert would call an "idiot plot," in which all the characters would have to be idiots in order to make a film's plot work.)2. The characters are unsightly and scary. I'm surprised nobody has said any of this, because I honestly felt uncomfortable when I saw these new character designs, especially Goofy. When I see different facial expressions (like when Minnie takes a bit out of a hot dog), something just came over me -- like I was watching MAD on Cartoon Network, when I wanted to watch a Disney cartoon. In other words, a feeling of uncleanliness. Not to mention some other characters look totally out of place. For example, in "New York Weenie," the lion at the very end looked like it came from a totally different cartoon or picture; it's like a different artist drew that lion and not even the animators did anything to fix it to fit their style. Even worse was when I saw Mickey in that same short: he looked very unnerving when he took on all the different savage-looking and stalker-ish expressions. Not once did I laugh. Which, somehow, brings me to my next point.3. The characters are out of character. The people responsible for these cartoons obviously put a bare minimum amount of effort in doing their research on classic Disney characters. Heck, some of them don't appear until later shorts! It's like they were trying to hide their laziness in adding characters who would have fit roles better than the ones they used did. "No Service" is one such short where I saw a lot of out-of-character moments. Goofy, who runs a pier-side burger shack, acts like a bossy jerk. Donald is way too crude. Mickey is an idiot.But, let's be more specific here. First off, who is Goofy? He's a humble, lovable dimwit with a sense of decency. Here, he's bossy, inconsiderate and scratches his belly button when he talks about class. Not to mention cross-dressing in Central Park. A million laughs.Now, what about Donald? I mean, shoving his butt in Mickey's face? Making a butt innuendo joke? ("Look at those hot buns!" while Mickey, nude, is outside the restaurant, in particular.) And laughing at Mickey's misery as he is forced to streak the pier after deciding to take all Mickey's clothes just to get food? That is too crude. Donald Duck would pull pranks on other guys (especially little guys and his nephews), but he wouldn't deliberately embarrass, humiliate or hurt them. Unless he's angry, at least. But here, not once does Donald get ticked off. Right away, he is already rude and crude.Next, let's focus on Mickey. He's mischievous yet innocent. He has a better conscience than Donald, and he certainly knows better than to cause problems of any kind. But, in these cartoons, he's just a trouble-making imp! I mean, peering into baby carriages? Agreeing to give away his clothes just so Donald can get lunch (stupid idea, in the first place)? And streaking along the pier? I mean, he could have just gone to get some spare clothes. Or he and Donald could have just not lend the other clothes and risk indecent exposure in a public place.One last problem.4. These cartoons are NOT funny. They have NO respect for Disney's visions and ideas of entertainment. They show NO consideration for their audience or their intelligence. They do NOT respect or understand the source material. They are offensive, vulgar, grotesque, nauseating and unnerving. It's just another sellout made to give the people responsible for these cartoons a quick buck. In fact, these "Mickey Mouse" cartoons may as well be the equivalent of the production staff's giving a giant middle finger to Walt Disney for his desire to share his visions with the rest of the world, and a giant middle finger to families everywhere for appreciating the actual cartoons and films that shaped their childhoods and helped define their personalities. Worst of all, the very thought of cartoons like this modern "Mickey Mouse" shaping the childhoods of today's young generation and defining their personalities induces as much lingering pain as an IBS attack.Now, I'm not trying to be a Disney purist and I'm not saying all of Disney's works in the past were perfect. But, when Walt Disney and his Nine Old Men were around, they put a lot of effort into their works. Each past work is cleverly thought out, has a smooth quality of animation with an excellent pacing, provides plenty of laughs in a way that people will remember for years to come and -- most of all -- teaches morals in a timeless and captivating way or just tells clever jokes.Disney's officials claim these new "Mickey Mouse" cartoons are a throwback to the 1930s cartoons and follow the same formula Disney used in those cartoons. However, I find that to be an utter lie. We have seen many reincarnations of Mickey Mouse and his friends, all done by different people with their own styles and visions. Even video games like Kingdom Hearts still have something that preserves the integrity of Mickey Mouse and his friends. But, do these cartoons on Disney Channel and YouTube manage to preserve that same integrity? The answer to that question is a big, fat NO.

My sister and I have been a fan of Mickey Mouse ever since we were young. When this first aired , I used to have very little interest in it. And after watching a few of the Mickey Mouse Shorts, I started to be interested in it.At times, the humor is funny, but sometimes not. The storyline for each episode is interesting and cool. And the characters are likable.From what we have today such as the stupid "I didn't do it" show, Mickey Mouse Shorts is one of the best shows/shorts in 2010-2015.(P.S: My sister's favorite episode is "New York Weenie", while I like "No Service")

First of all, the show isn't that funny. For example, Yoldenberg is the first episode. Nothing was funny, especially the yodeling, the music, and the animation. It would've been a better show if they had more frames in the animation. Second of all, in No Service, it was very inappropriate because Mickey was naked. I personally think this show can do better. To improve this show, Disney should make more 3-D Elements in the show, make it more entertaining for all ages. The most recent episode, Pandamonium was... I don't know... It doesn't have any jokes!Disney, please add more jokes to make it funny for all ages. Please add elements from Phineas and Ferb or Liv and Maddie. If you could make Mickey Mouse like that, I would give it seven stars.