The Rescuers Down Under

Having been a fan of the Rescuers which was a compelling and underrated film in my opinion, I heard that Disney made a sequel to this 13 years later. I was like, "Dang. That's a pretty long time to fully develop a sequel. Sure, Return to Oz, the sequel to The Wizard of Oz, was released 46 years later, but it's a little bit difficult to compare the two even though The Wizard of Oz wasn't made by Disney to begin with. With that said, "The Rescuers Down Under" fully captivated me when I first saw it and given it's number #11 spot at top 11 underrated nostalgic classics made by Nostalgia Critic himself, I personally agree that like The Rescuers, this is one of the most under-appreciated films and a better one at that (along with Aladdin and the King of Thieves, The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, and Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time)

The storyline, like the original, is very good and much more engaging with lots of great suspense throughout the film along with some great flying moments with Marahute, which really wowed me the first time I saw her. The characters are as likable as they were in the first film especially Bernard and Biana. The new characters including the rousing Australian mouse named Jake and the hilarious seagull Wilbur along with the other animals attempting to guide Cody were enjoyable to see and Cody, despite his unnatural dialog due to his accent that several users commented on, is at least likable. The main villain Percival M. Mcleach, although not on par with some of my favorite Disney villains, is a great menacing bad-guy with an excellent voice-work from George C. Scott. In fact, the voice acting was pretty good especially John Candy's. The music from Bruce Broughton is excellent and fitted really well for the action moments in the movie and even the pacing is very brisk.

Overall, The Rescuers Down Under may not be one of Disney's greatest films ever made, but much like The Rescuers, this is a greatly underrated sequel that deserves much more recognition. Besides, it's a shame that a Rescuers 3 hasn't been made.

I saw this movie again today and I still can't understand why this movie became forgotten. I think it's unfair that "The Rescuers Down Under" didn't get the attention "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast" got. Don't get me wrong, I liked those movies too, but "The Rescuers Down Under" truly deserved to be among the 90's golden age (I know it's sounds like a cliché, but it's true).

This movie opens with a breathtaking, opening shot where the camera swoops over the Australian outback, which is alone worth the watch. One could think the movie would fail from there on, but fortunately it never does. After the prologue the movie offers a high paced action, adventure and humor that will get the kids amused - or a least it amused me when I saw this film at theaters as a child.

The character animation is great and the movie's visual look is beautiful and certainly realistic. I loved the layout and the epic scale. And Bruce Broughtons score is majestic as well.

While the story is quite simple, the characters portrays good personalities. My favorites are Wilbur, Jake, Frank, and Joanna. The fact that the latter character didn't speak made her more amusing. McLeach is a effective villain and Bernard and Bianca are two likable protagonists. And Marahute provides great majesty.

I remember seeing this film for the first time as a 7-year old in theaters - it was an amusing and spectacular experience. Several years have passed and I'm still enjoying it. Although the film's ingredients are enough to please the kids, I still think the action and excitement of would fit to the adults too. It's a film that nobody should miss and deserves to be everyone's childhood memory (or in a adult's memory, for that matter).

The first one was overall a cute film, definitely a classic, but nothing to scream about, you know what I mean? Anyways, as a kid I would always take characters who would look cool in some big action powered flick with high drama and adventure. Having a real evil villain that threatens death, and kick the pace up a notch from the original movie.

My wish came true, The Rescuers Down Under was a high powered animated action flick with intense drama and heart-pounding emotion. Severely different from the original, which was about two little mice sent out on a mission to save a little girl held captive by a vile woman in search for a priceless diamond. This time, a young boy named Cody was kidnapped by a poacher named McLeach, who desperately wants to enormous eagle that was just saved from captivity. Despite the dangers, these two little mice named Bernard and Miss Bianca head out on probably the most daring rescue ever assigned to the R.A.S. (Rescue Aid Society). Without a moment to lose, they hop aboard the big bird named Wilbur to a nonstop flight to Australia. From then on its just keeps getting better, and the filmmakers weren't afraid how far they strayed from the kinder hearted tone of the original. That's a good thing.

This was easily put in my top animated films, behind Beauty and the Beast and the Prince of Egypt of course. It was a little shorter than I would have liked, which doesn't make this brilliant film absolutely spotless. None the less I recommend this to anyone looking for menacing fun.

Trust me, this is a brilliant film that may be a little too intense for the younglings, but still a family film which I think will be loved by adults and kids alike.

****/**** stars

The Rescuers Down Under (1990): Rated PG for intense moments

I have always been one of the, maybe, eight or nine big fans of this movie and I have only one small question about it.

WHY CAN'T THEY MAKE MORE LIKE THIS???

If you have not seen this movie yet, you must. It's the first Disney movie to use fully rendered CGI backgrounds throughout and you definately get the sense that the animators wanted to play with this new method. What I'm getting at is that some of you may want to down some motion sickness medicine first.

There are *no* song and dance numbers. Reason being that this is a surprisingly dark, more emotionally complex story for a Disney movie. They went out on a limb and chose not to break the tone up too much.

This is the number two Lost Disney Movie (number one, without a doubt, is "the Hunchback of Notre Dame", which I also love). It's own creators barely acknowledge its existance. The very best evidence of this is on the new video release box's plot summary, where a MAJOR character's gender is misidentified.

On the other hand, I sort of enjoy the idea of a "cult" Disney movie. Instead of marketing "Down Under" to death, Disney can only be accused of the opposite mistake.

So, anyway, here I go again running to this movie's defence. I'll tackle the one major critisism of it before I go. Many critics were expecting another "Rescuers". In my humble opinion, these two movies are two entirely different animals. The original "Rescuers" is an example of where Disney was in the sixties and seventies. "Down Under" is a time capsule of late eighties, early nineties Disney. In other words, you can't really say that one is better than the other as the only thing they have in common are three characters (what I'm getting at is that this should be thought of more as "Rescue Aid Society: the Next Generation").

By the way, I've got an idea that I'm just going to throw out to the proverbial wolves here. Why not make more "Rescuers" movies instead of sequels to Disney movies where follow-up stories make no sence? They are sitting on one heck of a potential franchise here. Just thought I'd let you know.

It isn't as good as the immensely charming original, but I enjoyed this very much. You do realise that this was released 13 years after the original, and a lot of the characters had to be animated again. I forgive them for that though, as the animation was surprisingly good, especially the scenes with Marahute, who blew me away at the sight of her. Though Bianca does look different than she was in the original film, she had chubbier cheeks here. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor are great as Bernard and Bianca, although there was a significant change in both characters. John Candy was hilarious as Wilbur. If there is one element that is better than the original, but only marginally, it is that Wilbur is funnier than Orville. The plot was also very good, on a parallel with the original, but that was the intention, and the music by Bruce Broughton was appropriately fitting. Cody is very likable, but sometimes his dialogue is a bit unnatural, and I know that people commented on his accent. George C. Scott, a fine actor, was suitably menacing as McLeach, although his animation at times was a tad frightening. I really enjoyed this movie, it's not perfect, but it is one of the better animated sequels to come out. 8/10 Bethany Cox