Disney's best, period. Amazing range of songs, from higly emotional to funny and entertaining. Each moment and every character is fully realized. The animation is top-notch. It also has the key Disney element, a great villain.

Perfect blend of dark and light. Most of the main protagonists from Disney movies are awfully bland, but Pinocchio has so much enthusiasm and ambition that you cannot help but love him.

Watched as a kid and did not watch again until I was 20. I was completely shocked by how well-rounded this film is.

Trippy is probably the best way to describe this film. Every pothead's favorite Disney movie. Funny but a little too dark.

Visually captivating and emotionally resonant. It tends to drag a bit in the middle.

Great villain and some really good light comedy.

Fantastic visuals and some fine comedic moments courtesy of the supporting players. The dark and light do not seem to blend as well as they do in Disney's best efforts.

Fantastic follow-up to the original, unfortunately it comes about 40 years too late. They should have done it at the height of jazz in the 60's, using the music of Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Herbie Hancock, and others.

Main plot doesn't kick in for awhile and the songs are really bland, but when the prince's adventure kicks in the film really takes off.

Patrick Waterburton is the man. He's been Puddy, Brock, Krunk, and The Tick; there are also his stints on "Family Guy" and "Newsradio". He steals this film, altough Spade has his moments.

Underrated, jazz-infuzed film. Very entertaining.

For all the criticism the mice receive, I got say I prefer to watch them. The character of Cinderella is really standard issue and I don't find her to be very interesting.

The same creepy feeling can be felt resonating through this story that was found in the original. However, fantastic animation and a great performance by John Candy save this movie.

Solid if not spectacular effort.

Pretty good movie, altough it was a big dip from "Jungle Book". You cannot help but compare the two films because their stories are so similar. What is the deal with the different voices for Arthur? The kid voice changes, noticably, more than once during the course of the film.

Not too far removed from Pocohantas.

I have only seen this once and I don't remember a single thing. So, that's it.

Visuals don't compare to the films that came immediately before and after it. Danny Devito's character is just grating. I like the touch of the singers, but that's about it.

Never seen it, but judging by the critical and commercial reaction it's probably not great.

Boring and unnecessary.