|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Index||59 reviews in total|
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.
"The Rescuers Down Under" is a wonderful tale, the rare film that surpasses
its original in many, many ways. It has more flair, better animation and the
characters are much more interesting. It is the sequel to "The Rescuers,"
which was released 13 years earlier. They took their time making this sequel
- and it paid off. Cartoons can often be represented in a dull fashion, and
others can take your breath away - this one takes your breath
The intrepid mouse explorers Bernard and Bianca (voices of Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor) from the original film return in "The Rescuers Down Under," when they hear word that a small boy in Australia has been kidnapped by a poacher named McLeach (voiced by the creepy George C. Scott). McLeach has also captured a large eagle, and the kidnapped boy, Cody, has a bond with the large beast.
The Rescuers fly Down Under by hitching a ride on the hilarious, never over-the-top albatross Wilbur (voiced by John Candy). Once there, they pick up a local Aussie "kangaroo mouse" named Jake, who indeed resembles a miniature kangaroo. There are also some other delightful new characters, including Frank, a numbskull lizard, and Joanna the goanna lizard, the sidekick of McLeach. The key to this film is that they know how to make great characters - Joanna is just as fun to watch as Frank, and Jake is just as fun to watch as Bernard and Bianca. You never feel any hate towards any characters. My personal favorite was Wilbur, the albatross. He appears at various points in the film, caught in a mouse hospital, caught watching over eagle eggs, and caught hatching eagle eggs. He awaits the return of Bernard and Bianca, and he's too good-natured to just fly away and forget about them. And John Candy's voice talents are priceless.
A lot of the amazing animation on this film takes place in the air, on the back of a soaring eagle. The animation in the original was raspy, dark and creepy. It wasn't nearly as breathtaking, or even enjoyable to watch. There also aren't any musical numbers in this film - at least not that I remember - and that also helps it out a bit. (I hated the original and its songs.) Maybe it's just me, but sometimes musical numbers don't fit into 'toons - and this is one of those.
"The Rescuers Down Under" is one of the best Disney films I have ever seen. The Disney animation of the 1970s, such as "The Rescuers," was the low-point of Disney. The high-point was films like "Pinnochio." And in all honesty, this film is more interesting than both combined. It's got great animation, an intriguing and fun story, and excellent, well-developed characters. Only one thing entered my head when the credits started to roll: Can this possibly be a cartoon?
4.5/5 stars -
THE RESCUERS, in my opinion, is pure Disney entertainment. It made me feel all warm and tingly when Bernard (voice of Bob Newhart) and Bianca (voice of Eva Gabor) set out on their mission to rescue Cody (voice of Adam Ryen) and the rare golden eagle. If you ask me, McLeach (voice of George C. Scott) was absolutely nefarious. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone was perfectly cast, the direction was flawless, and Disney has scored a big hit. Also, after having seen this movie, I would love to go to Australia one day. In conclusion, I highly recommend this pure Disney blockbuster to everyone who hasn't seen it. I guarantee you you'll enjoy it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The 29th animated Disney classic is, without a doubt, one of the only
Disney sequels worth something. It is also one of the only sequels
which belong to the canon list of Disney classics.
This is a sequel to the classic 'The Rescuers' from 13 years before and it's quite different than what it was originally going to be. Instead of a sequel about Penny living happy with her adoptive parents, this is a brand new adventure.
With the exception of Bernard, Miss Bianca and Mr. Chairman, the characters are all different. Almost the entire cast is different too, except Bob Newhart, Eva Gabor and Bernard Fox.
To be fair, the original movie is far superior. That I definitely agree. However, some people consider this to be a disgrace and honestly it isn't that bad. Comparing to most Disney sequels, this is much better.
Although this movie is brand new, it is naturally inspired by the original's idea. That's why it is so equal and so different at the same time.
This time, instead of the Devil's Bayou, our mice heroes (Bernard and Bianca) go to Australia to save not a little girl, but a little boy named Cody who is in more danger than Penny was.
Instead of Orville, this time who takes them to their destiny is his humorous brother Wilbur. There are no swamp animals this time and surprisingly no Evinrude. I'm surprised because Evinrude joins the RAS at the end of the original movie. Jake is their guide. Instead of Medusa, Snoops and Brutus & Nero, now the villain is an evil poacher named McLeach and his sidekick is a goanna named Joanna.
Initially Orville was going to be in this movie, but after Jim Jordan's death in 1988 they created Wilbur with the voice of the comedian John Candy. That was a better and more clever solution than replacing the original voice. At least on this nobody can say they didn't do the right thing.
The good of this movie: the sceneries are amazing, you can appreciate the natural beauty of Australia, that wonderful country nearly at the end of the world; Joanna is a comic relief, she's simply hilarious; there are some nice songs (such as the morbid "Home on the Range" by McLeach and the very lively "Black Slacks" by Joe Bennett and the Sparkletones); this movie is fun, has danger, action, adventure, darkness and classic humor; it has got one of the best Disney villains and one of my favorite Disney villains (McLeach); Wilbur is a very amusing character; Cody is a good boy; the glorious scenes with Cody and the magnificent & enormous golden eagle Marahute; it is one of the only good and watchable Disney sequels.
The bad of this movie: mostly the disturbing moments with Wilbur suffering emotionally and physically at the hospital; the fact that the animals which are McLeach's prisoners are forgotten at the end, without knowing what happens to them; Wilbur is forgotten too and left all alone, but in a different way (still he is neglected); some characters aren't that appealing (such as Frank - although with his funny moments, he overacts and is so exaggerated that he quickly becomes tiring); the whole restaurant sequence, which is absolutely unnecessary and has no purpose for the rest of the film; it lacks character development (something which the first one does better); besides, this isn't as good as the first one, somehow lacking the charm of that one; unfortunately, it may also have been responsible for the mess of Disney sequels that would come in the following years.
Despite its many faults, it is still a good movie. And, together with the original, it was an important part of my wonderful childhood. The intense nostalgia feeling it brings to those who grew up with it (like me) is more than enough to appreciate it better and excuse its faults. Besides, the fact that most Disney sequels pale next to this improves the impression on it. Nevertheless, this movie remains as one of the least appreciated Disney classics and quite underrated.
The villain is a wanted local poacher. He drives a giant monstrous truck. He is pure evil, sadistic, greedy and even creepy at times (such as in one scene when his eyes glow red). He's got a morbid sense of humor, yet his patience is short and he's prone to major anger. So, McLeach is not the right guy to irritate. There's no denying that he is more dangerous, more cruel and more violent than Medusa. He's a killer. Joanna is used and abused by him (both physically and psychologically). Besides, he was gonna feed Cody to the crocodiles! But still he is a great villain.
This should definitely be on Top 250.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When it comes to Disney sequels, most are usually OK or just plain bad,
The Rescuers Down Under is not only the first Disney sequel but the
best Disney sequel to this day. It surpassed the first film by far and
I have loved it since I was a little girl. When I bought it on DVD as a
grown up, I was thinking that I wouldn't have the same feelings since
you're a kid, everything seems amazing. But still rewatching it, this
is an incredible movie. The first Rescuers is such a sappy movie, it's
a good one, but it's just a tear jerker from beginning to end. This
film was epic, the animation is beyond incredible and the story was way
In the Australian Outback, a young boy named Cody rescues and befriends a rare golden eagle called Marahute, who shows him her nest and eggs. Later, the boy is captured in an animal trap set by Percival C. McLeach, a local wanted poacher. When McLeach finds one of the eagle's feathers in the boy's backpack he is instantly overcome with excitement, he knew that capturing the bird would make him rich. McLeach kidnaps the boy and attempts to force out of him the whereabouts of the rare eagle, even going as far as offering to split the profit with him. But the Rescuers hear of Cody's troubles from a mouse had saved earlier in the film and they go to save him and the magnificent eagle.
I don't even know where to begin on the excellence of this film. First off the animation, there's this shot of the outback that just ranges to what seems like forever and the music that plays during that scene makes you feel like you're really there. The scenes where Cody is flying with the bird is just epic and beautiful. The characters are wonderful, you could feel the power of the bird and you just want nothing but evil karma to come down upon the villain for trying to capture something so majestic and incredible. Cody is a very likable hero who has respect for all living creatures. And of course our famous rescuers are back and they are better than ever in helping Cody save the eagle. If you're ever going to see a Disney sequel, I would always recommend The Rescuers Down Under. It's a great movie in general, I would say it stands well on it's own. It's a terrific underrated gem that needs more recognition.
Whilst it's not as good as the original, The Rescuers Down Under is not
a disgrace as far as sequels go. Many theatrical sequels tend to be no
better than ones released direct-to-video. Down Under is an exception.
Plot-wise, there are a few faults. Some scenes just seemed to be there for the sake of it and the plot is considerably weaker than the original. But there are enough jokes and enough suspense to keep the film going so there's never a dull moment. Some might say that the story is a rehash of the original and that is partly true. That's the only real major flaw I find in Down Under.
Benard and Bianca stay wonderfully in character and the new characters, such as Jake the Kangaroo Rat are very memorable too. Penny may have had Teddy for a friend but Cody has Marahute - a mighty Golden Eagle. Her movements are true to that of a real bird of prey, and yet she has a distinct humanoid quality. Whenever you look into her eyes, you know exactly what she's thinking. Jim Jordan (the voice of Orville) is sadly dead. (God rest his soul). But instead of replacing the voice actor, we have a new albatross - Orville's brother Wilbur. He is a worthy replacement. He provides plenty of comic relief, especially during his nightmarish time in hospital. Joanna the villain's sidekick is like Madame Medusa as a lizard. She looks like she came straight out of the original. McLeach, the evil poacher is a very intimidating villain. He's not as funny as Madame Medusa but he's not meant to be. He's not the sort of person you'd like to run into in the wilderness.
If there's one aspect of this film that's superior to the first, it's the animation. The computer generated shots are spectacular. Sure, they might be dated today, but I think that the hand-drawn animation melds nicely with the CGI. Whilst the jungle in Tarzan looked like plastic, the rocks and cliffs in The Rescuers Down Under look realistic and full of texture. We have a lot of 'high-flying in the clouds' scenes which are a lot of fun and would be brilliant on the IMAX screen. Also, putting a tiny mouse against a vast landscape gives the movie an epic feel. Like the first Rescuers, the backgrounds are beautiful and pave the way for the beautiful scenery seen in The Lion King.
However, Down Under does have its little flaws. One example is that Cody is Australian yet he speaks with an American accent. Also, how on earth did he climb up that huge cliff? There are other little inconsistencies too but they are easily overlooked.
The sequel connects nicely with the original. A lot of the RAS mice from the original are seen again. Also, a lot of character designs are true to the first as well. Benard has hardly changed at all. Only Bianca looks somewhat different.
In conclusion, The Rescuers Down Under is inferior to the original Rescuers, but it's still high-flying fun. This is definitely one of the better Disney sequels. So sit back and enjoy. Remember, you *could* be watching Pocahontas II.
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
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.
The Rescuers Down Under (1990): Rated PG for intense moments
After nearly two decades of disappointing animated movies, the Disney
folks got back to winning ways in 1989 with The Little Mermaid. That
marked the start of a succession of five Disney cartoons in a row that
were all of a really high quality, the five being The Little Mermaid,
The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin and The Lion
King. The second film on this list - The Rescuers Down Under - is a
rip-roaring adventure movie which is a sequel to an earlier Disney
movie made in 1977. In fact, the original The Rescuers was a pretty
forgettable film and it seems extremely strange that the Disney people
had that particular film in mind when they decided to make a sequel.
This second instalment is thankfully much more memorable, well-animated
ad exciting. It's not often that it can be said, but this is a case of
a sequel which is superior to the original.
In the Australian Outback, a young boy named Cody (voice of Adam Reyen) rescues and befriends a rare golden eagle. Later, the boy is captured in a trap by wanted local poacher McLeach (voice of George C. Scott). When McLeach finds one of the eagle's feathers in the boy's backpack he is instantly overcome with excitement, for he knows that to capture such a grandiose bird would make him filthy rich! McLeach kidnaps the boy and attempts to force out of him the whereabouts of the rare eagle. Meanwhile, a message is sent to New York, home of the Rescue Aid Society.... a bunch of dare-devil mice who specialise in saving the lives of endangered children. Once again, mice agents Bernard (voice of Bob Newhart) and Bianca (voice of Eva Gabor) find themselves up to their neck in adventure as they try to rescue young Cody from his abductor's lair.
The animation in this 1990 release is absolutely excellent and seems to mark a significant step forward in terms of the technology available to animators. The story is exciting and fast-paced, with just a sprinkling of humour to offer a little relief from the action from time to time. On the whole, the voice acting is very good, most notably Newhart and Gabor as the heroes, with solid support from John Candy's comical albatross and Scott's seriously unpleasant villain. Purists might be surprised and disappointed by the lack of the usual catchy Disney songs (there are none in this one, not even a theme song over the credits), but in most departments this is a first-rate animated movie that should enthral kids and adults alike.
Often times in a series of films, the sequel is far inferior to the
original film. However in the case of The Rescuers Down Under, the
sequel is a million times better than the original and also my favorite
Disney Animated Film.
A young boy named Cody lives in Australia and goes around befriending many different species of animals. This includes the great giant golden eagle named Marahute. However Cody is soon captured by an evil poacher named Mcleach, who is after the golden eagle. It is up to Bernard and Bianca to rescue Cody and the golden eagle.
First off I must say that the animation in this film may be the best that I have ever seen in any animated film. ALl of the scenery is amazing and the wildlife in this film all look real. This is one major reason why this film is far better than the first Rescuers film. Here is an example. In The Rescuers, there are two alligators in the film that look quite ridiculous and add comic relief I feel. However in The Rescuers Down Under, the crocodiles in the film look and act how crocodiles act in real life leading this film to be more realistic. I love how the crocodiles look and act in this film because crocodiles are my favorite animal.
The fact that this film is set in Australia is awesome because that truly is the most interesting continent out there. All of the animals in this film are around in real life and you get to see a lot of species of different animals. This includes kangaroos, koalas, frilled lizards, goana, crocodiles, and many others. As far as accurate depictions of real areas and the animals that live there, this film is just as good as The Lion King in that regard.
The main villain, Mcleach, is an outstanding one. He is an evil poacher who works well mainly because the threat that he possesses seems like it could really happen. Also he has a sense of humor. For the most part a great villain because it is one that could easily really exist and makes Mcleach work all the better.
This film does not have any songs in it. I think that helps to make the film more realistic and give it a more serious tone. It may be the only animated Disney film, not including pixar films, that has no songs in it.
Bianca and Bernard are both back. However it is all of the other characters that seem to make the film better and not them. As far as leading characters go I guess they are OK, but The Rescuers is considered a disappointment and the fact that this film is so good not because of them shows that they really are not that exciting.
I think this film is incredibly under rated. That may be because I am sure that many people associate this film with The Rescuers. However this film stands by itself in my opinion. The Rescuers Down Under is a great Disney FIlm that I highly recommend.
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
|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|