User Reviews

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.

The biggest disappointment I have when hearing about The Rescuers Down Under is just how much of an improvement it supposedly is to the first movie, The Rescuers from 1977. I just cannot comprehend this idea. The Rescuers was an exceptionally well-made movie, with a strong plot and an unforgettable visual style. Out of the Disney movies that aren't heavyweight classics, it's one of the studio's very best. The Rescuers Down Under is often gorgeous to look at. But it's not by any means half the movie the original was.

The good stuff in Down Under is obvious. The three dimensional landscapes, the effect shots, the good voice cast and the wonderful music all create a movie that LOOKS and SOUNDS just absolutely great. It's a spectacle to watch the many sequences taking place in the air, the eagle flight in the opening and that mindblowing descent into a blizzardy New York City from the albatross. It takes your breath away every time. It is the very anti-thesis to the first movie, which was mellow and low-key, which used an almost eerie silence during a lot of dramatic events and had very few action scenes at all. As an adventure movie, Down Under is often a treat.

But there are many things with the movie that bothers me a lot. The first film was dark and atmospheric, even poetic at times. I know it's going to sound strange but I find the movie is too "kid friendly". It's not that a Disney movie shouldn't welcome it's target audience, it's just that I get the feeling the movie is really taking the kids for granted, rather than working in their service. There is something so redundant and automatic with the plot of this movie. A generic boy with no greater character traits (other than being a morally correct role model) is captured by a big evil poacher McLeach, wonderfully voiced by George C. Scott, driving around in an elaborately huge war-machine and living in a big, evil looking, home-made hunting lair (we learn he is wanted.... you'd think he'd be more discreet!). To the rescue are Bernard and Bianca, who are introduced with a slapstick scene where Bernard tries to get back the wedding ring he tries to present to Bianca. The thing about The international Rescue Aid Society, which served as a big and great introduction scene in the first movie, is over within less than a minute. In a movie 74 minutes long, couldn't we at least get that catchy rescue song? But were not wasting time in the 90's, we hurry off to Australia where we get a great character in Jake, the Australian kangaroo, but he gets almost nothing to do in the movie (though he surely serves as a good toy for McDonald's). Meanwhile, the kid in McLeach's lair also meet some new characters as it turns out that McLeach holds several animals captive in his basement. We get a few lines from a grumpy koala, and a few from a very well mannered kangaroo, but most of the attention goes to an obnoxious lizard that I don't recall at all from my childhood. It's one of those obligatory comic relief characters that they think will amuse the kids, and I don't know, maybe they do. But I still think it's annoying to give so much screen time to a stupid and annoying lizard when they could have made something memorable, with proper character. The swamp folks in the original Rescuers were more like adults (albeit drinking rednecks, but who's perfect right?) and if memorable comic reliefs is your bag, the silent firefly Evinrude was unforgettable. The most memorable sidekick in this movie is Joanna, the dumb iguana of McLeach's. She is most fittingly a follower to the eels in The Little Mermaid and a precursor to the hyenas in The Lion King and she is both funny, well drawn and have a strong character (unlike many of the other characters in this movie). McLeach is also a good, if a little standard, villain.

The movie wraps itself up pretty quickly and the plot is lazy, automatic and doesn't even believe in itself - we MUST have, I suppose, a comic relief sidestory involving John Candy's albatross. It does not serve the story of the movie at all, but I suspect the film makers didn't have any ideas, so they just threw in these hysterical scenes to make a couple of minutes pass. What made the first movie so good, besides that it too was gorgeous to watch, was that it had a plot that held up. One girl trapped in a scary swamp. Two detective mice getting closer to actually finding her within an actual investigation (in Down Under that's not even a problem, as said they don't waste time). One flight to Devil's Bay, one team-up with the girl, one scheme, one evil lady and two crocodiles, some swamp people, scary pivotal scene in a cave, finale with fireworks, all ends well. It's a great movie! In Down Under the mice act just so that the movie can continue until it ends, meanwhile giving us great stuff to look at, some comic relief and some tension that is generic and un-original. Get this: The movie doesn't even have the interest to show a reunion between the boy and his mother! This despite the fact that we learn his dad has died and that the police take the boy for dead too. Down Under tells its story sloppy and automatic.

Even so, it's an entertaining film, mostly due to it's great looks. But it does feel calculated and soulless in comparison to The Rescuers, which was a genuine, original and actually pretty bold animated movie that didn't take kids for granted and made a movie that anyone can enjoy to fullest degree. I don't think Down Under has that power, and I don't think it is half the movie the original was.

Often overlooked amongst the giants of the 90's Disney era, "The Rescuers Down Under" has enjoyed a more than modest following in the decades since. It's easy to see why, given its relatively unique quality within the infamous pool of Disney sequels. Yet, even with all its successes (and it is a successful movie), I can still understand why it was quickly forgotten.

The main assets are, as anyone who has seen it has noticed, the impressive production values. Unlike the original, which felt much more old-fashioned and subdued in its style, the images and characters have a much smoother and more detailed look, and the movement is more fluid. It would be an understatement to say that this is a very good looking movie. Most are quick to point out the flying scenes when discussing this (fittingly so), although I think it is unfair to heap so much praise on a film because of one early sequence. There is an equally impressive scene, where the 3 mice attempt to infiltrate Mcleach's vehicle and the "camera" goes through one long shot throughout the mechanisms of the vehicle. Some of the animals, particularly Marahute and Joanna, are remarkably life-like and expressive, far more so than the occasionally amusing, mostly annoying local critters cursed with voices.

As far as voice performances go, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor remain at the top of their game as Bernard and Ms. Bianca, bringing an endearing quality that is welcome. Adam Ryen makes a decent effort to bring life to the new "child in distress", Cody, though his inhuman bravery can be bothersome; Penny brought the correct blend of bravery and child-like vulnerability to the screen. However, John Candy is wrong for the role of Wilbur, the albatross. His voice is too recognizable, a fact not helped by the slew of rapid fire lines the script gives him.

The standout, though, is definitely George C. Scott as Percival Mcleach, one of the few elements with which the sequel made a definite improvement. He is completely in control of every scene he is in, bringing a degree of menace that befits his role as an almost obsessive poacher, but also displaying wit and cunning; pay attention to his endlessly amusing double act with Joanna. Mcleach really is the main reason to watch this movie, and perhaps the most fully realized individual therein.

There are two not insignificant faults that ultimately prevent this from being an improvement over its predecessor: the story and treatment of the characters. Regardless of what anyone says regarding any other aspect of "The Rescuers Down Under", it is undeniable that the story is wafer-thin, and more befitting of an hour long television special than a feature film. At its bare bones, it is simply a retread of that of "The Rescuers", with the mice getting a distress call to rescue a child that has been kidnapped because the kidnapper needs the child in order to obtain something valuable. The difference is that "The Rescuers" actually had a sense of significance, at least in its own line, because it was the first mission for the two main mice. With the exception of Bernard's plans to propose (which deserved much more focus), this story feels more like an ordinary chapter in these guys' lives. The flow is also problematic, as the choppy middle act tries to juggle 3 subplots, 2 of which are little more than distractions, and none of which give us much reason to care for the key players.

This matter is only exacerbated by how the characters are handled this time around. While I very much liked the two lead mice, it only left me all the more let down by the fact that they have very little to do here. Unlike "The Rescuers", where they actively investigate, plan and discuss the situation, Ms. Bianca and Bernard's part in the story is told in broad strokes. With the exception of the climax, their story mostly amounts to getting from point A to point B, showing the bare minimum of what they go through. There is a nice subplot with Bernard planning to propose to Bianca, but constantly being interrupted; this made for a few engaging moments, particularly one where the two of them are briefly alone together before a snake appears. The movie really needed more moments like this where the relationship between these two could truly be conveyed. Bianca, who once served as an active encouraging influence for Bernard, now mainly has the purpose of looking cute; she is no longer the kind of character that acts. Also, given that they are clearly in a relationship, am I the only one bothered by her seeming indifference to Bernard being relegated to a third-wheel half the time? Nonetheless, it was satisfying to see Bernard step out of his comfort zone and work out the situation, even if it feels obligatory and rushed.

While The Rescuers Down Under is a commendable, and quite funny, effort at continuing the story of an older Disney film, it falls a little short of its predecessor. Today, there seems to be a growing number of people that claim it was underrated during the time of its release. I will admit to that, but it was not to a considerable degree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these same people give it too much credit. There was plenty to behold in the visual department, but not enough to make me care beyond a superficial level, a stark weakness when its contemporaries aspired to considerable emotional resonance.

This has been a family favorite ever since it came out and it's sad that not many people appreciate it for what it is.

This is less of a sequel and more of a separate story with only three characters (the chubby mouse in charge of the Rescue Aid Society, Wilbur, and Miss Bianca) returning, this time to rescue Cody, a young boy who is attempting to rescue animals from poachers and is kidnapped in the process. His most recent animal rescue is Marahute, the golden eagle.

While disjointed in places, this film proves to be a fun little thrill ride. The main characters are fairly well-developed though typically one-dimensional. The only one who shows a character arc is Bernard, who finally has a chance to move past his superstitious, worrisome nature and find some courage.

MacLeech, the poacher villain, is sufficiently creepy and his huge lizard sidekick Joanna is awesomely funny. Our family has even developed the habit for calling 'Joannaaaaaa!' whenever we see a really big lizard, so enthralled we are with the reptile. Another funny character is Frank the frilled lizard, who never fails to bring giggles.

The good parts about this film are the typically wonderful animation (first animated Disney movie with computer animation!) and the AWESOME music. It's wonderful! No song-and-dance numbers and a sweeping score, composed by Bruce Broughton (Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey). The liberal use of woodwinds serves the story well, able to bring sadness in certain areas and playfulness in others.

The best part in the movie is easily the flying sequence, which never fails to bring goosebumps. I would go so far as to say the third shot from the last (where Cody is pushed off the edge of the waterfall) is the best shot in Disney animation history.

Overall, a fun romp that doesn't have enough appreciation.

Our adventure picks up where our last never left off: the Australian outback. On this fine day, Cody, a young, adventurous boy, discovers a very large, beautiful eagle caught in a poacher's trap. Using his skill, Cody worked quickly to save the eagle and so sparked an instantaneous friendship. On the eagle's back, Cody soared high over the plains and valleys of the world's smallest continent. He was king of the world. The eagle took Cody to her nest and showed him her eggs. She was a mother eagle. The father eagle, though, was sadly killed by a poacher. On his way home, Cody stopped to help a field mouse caught in another trap when suddenly he himself fell into a larger trap. And then, who should come along but Percival C. McLeach, the gruffest, meanest, nastiest poacher in all of Australia and possibly the world. Roaring up in his giant monster truck, he was surprised to find a young human in his trap. He helped Cody out and suddenly noticed the golden eagle feather on his person. Immediately McLeach demanded to know where the feather's owner was. Cody refused to blab, so McLeach threw him in the back slammer and drove off. The field mouse quickly got on the telegraph and sent a message for help. But there was only one agency who could provide the proper rescue aid: The Rescue Aid Society.

The message bounced from the Hawaiian islands, across the U.S.A until it finally reached RAS headquarters in the basement of the U.N. building in New York. The RAS Chairman called an emergency meeting in which all the delegates attended...except for its two top agents: Bernard and Miss Bianca who, at that very moment, were dining atop a chandelier in a fancy restaurant across town. Bernard was trying to get up the courage to propose to Miss Bianca, but that's when they received the message to get down to Australia and rescue the kidnapped boy. They decide to fly, much to Bernard's chagrin, on Albatross Air again. Instead of Orville, they meet his outrageous, but obnoxious twin brother Wilbur. After a very long flight, the trio arrive in Australia and the landing left Wilbur literally bent out of shape, so they took him to a field hospital aboard an old Army bus, while Bernard and Bianca meet a wily, kangaroo-mouse named Jake, who took an immediate shine to Miss Bianca. Together, they make their move into the vast, ferocious deserts of Australia's outback, all the while Jake tries to put the moves on Bianca by showing her what a good snake wrangler he was. Meanwhile, McLeach, determined to find the eagle's eggs, released Cody and lied about the mother eagle being killed, knowing the boy would immediately go for the eggs. Which he did. McLeach jumped into his monster truck and gave chase. Bernard, Bianca and Jake witnessed and decided to come along, so they jump aboard the truck.

Sure enough, Cody went right for the eagle's nest. Suddenly, he heard a familiar screech then saw...the eagle! She hadn't been killed. Well, not yet anyway, for right then McLeach showed up, sprang a huge trap and captured the eagle. He also caught Cody, Bianca and Jake then took off, leaving Bernard stranded in the nest. Fortunately Wilbur, having escaped the hellish mouse hospital, showed up. Bernard gave him the duty of egg-sitting, while he set off to rescue the captives and fight the bad guys. Along the way, he enlists the help of a razorback he was able to tame. Since McLeach had the eagle, he didn't need Cody anymore so he decided to stop and feed him to the crocodiles. Bianca and Jake were helpless, but luckily, just as Brutus and Nero's cousins were about to devour the boy, Bernard arrived on razorback. He quickly helped Bianca and Jake, then he bravely saved the boy from the treacherous waters and caused McLeach to fall in. Luckily for him, he avoided the crocs. He thought he was so clever, but he just didn't see that waterfall coming. The ruthless poacher went over, falling over 100 feet. It's safe to say the game of the outback won't have to worry about him anymore. Well, the friends all rejoice and take a ride on the eagle's back. Bernard finally worked up the courage to propose to Miss Bianca. She accepted. And they all lived happily ever after...

The Rescuers Down Under, sequel to the 1977 Disney blockbuster The Rescuers. To be honest, I found the original to be much better. The original just blew my mind. It was spectacular. Beautiful. Full of heart. Well made. Rescuers Down Under had terrific animation, but was greatly lacking in story, plot and most of all, character development. I found Cody, Jake and McLeach to be very undeveloped. And I'd still like to know how Bernard and Bianca came about joining RAS. The characters in this one were a tad weak and not quite involved. McLeach was more cruel than Medusa, yet she still seems nastier. Penny was an absolute sweetheart, and Cody, he was a good boy, but again, undeveloped; the dynamic duo of Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor return to voice our pint-sized heroes. John Candy is Wilbur. George C. Scott is McLeach, Adam Ryen as Cody and Tristan Rogers as Jake, all delivered great performances. Gabor, Candy and Scott are gone now, but their talents shall be remembered forever. Anyway, if you're a fan of Disney and you liked The Rescuers, then by all means give The Rescuers Down Under a try, mate. From 1990, The Rescuers Down Under. I recommend it.

The Rescuers is one of my favorite Disney films of all time. It's subtle, beautiful, and sweet. So that's why it irks me that this movie even exists. But what irks me more is that this movie is so completely inept at even the basics of decent storytelling, which is saying a lot considering the company it came from. But what really gets me, well not furious but pretty mad, is that people actually think this is better than the original. But I'll get to that.

The movie begins with Cody, a typical little boy living in the middle of absolutely nowhere who can talk to the animals with no real explanation as to how. We learn that he lost his father. And that's it, folks, the only character development we get from this character! We see him learn nothing or change in any way, he remains the same completely bland character throughout the whole movie. We're also given no explanation as to why he has an American accent when he clearly lives in the middle of the Australian Outback. Was he born in America and moved to Australia when his dad disappeared from existence with no explanation? Ah well, he gets trapped by a poacher and we're treated to 72 minutes of environmentalist agenda. But never mind that, we then get to see our main characters.

And, unfortunately, they play a minor role in the movie, despite the fact they're in the title of the film. The running gag is that Bernard is trying to propose to Bianca, a pretty weak gag if you ask me. Then they go flying with what has to be the most annoying character the Disney animators of the Renaissance ever put on screen: Wilbur the albatross. And he never leaves. His subplot is never funny or necessary and it just made me very uncomfortable watching him get shot with a giant needle.

And then Cody is trapped with a few characters who appear for, I guess, comic relief, but are left to rot down there because they're never shown again. Thus making that scene completely pointless. The other stupid thing in this movie is that, in the end, Bernard is standing on a weak branch holding a rope that is supporting Cody and keeping him from being washed away in a raging river. Now I know this is a cartoon but give me a break, a mouse couldn't possibly be that strong.

The only thing this entire movie has is visuals. There's no denying that it's a beautiful movie. The scenery is breathtaking. But I still think it isn't as good as the first film, which was a bit more like a gorgeous watercolor painting. But I think that's more of a matter of taste because while I may prefer the subtly of the first film, you might prefer the more realistic and gorgeous Australian scenery this film offers and I think both are equally as good. But that's about all that's good about this movie.

This movie looks like a good one on the surface but if you actually see it, it's clear there's nothing else to offer. Better than the original? I don't think so. This is one of the worst sequels to a REALLY good movie that I have ever seen. Skip this and watch The Rescuers. And if you're unimpressed by this, still watch The Rescuers to see how telling a story about two heroic mice is REALLY done.

"The Rescuers Down Under" takes Miss Bianca and Bernard to the Outback of Australia. There they must rescue a boy from the clutches of an evil poacher named McLeach. McLeach uses the child as an unknowing guide to the nest of an eagle and its eggs. Can they save the boy and keep the poacher from killing the great eagle and her offspring?

Unlike its predecessor, this sequel carries an obvious statement against the hunting and killing of animals. It's still an action-packed thrill ride and very humorous even with an agenda. I think every animated film in the early 1990s needed a purpose and reason to exist.

Hungarian actress Eva Gabor voices Miss Bianca with all the sophistication and panache she was known for. Bob Newhart brings Bernard to life with his trademark quiet and indifferent vocalization. John Candy gives a comical performance as the bumbling albatross Wilbur. George C. Scott sounds as malevolent as I'm sure Disney allowed him to as McLeach.

I didn't watch this movie that much as a kid, but I remember that whenever I watched it I would really enjoy it. But now, re-visiting it after so many years, I don't feel the same, this movie feels extremely rushed and underdeveloped.

Bernard and Bianca are barely in it, and they barely interact with Cody, the complete opposite of what happens in the original.

The sub plot of the albatros is one of the most pointless plot elements I have ever seen, it's filler at its best. Cody is extremely one dimensional, well, like all of the other characters.

They also present us with a bunch of animals the bad guy has captured, they each have quite a few lines, and then, they never appear again, when you see them, you think, maybe at the end they'll be released but they are forgotten.

And the ending is so unfulfilling, I could have sworn that the movie ended with Bernard proposing to Bianca, I was so sure I saw that as a kid, but no. They just fly in the air, and it ends. Not even a scene of Cody reuniting with his mother, what???

I think it would have been a lot better to have a sub plot about the mom instead of the albatros, it would have worked much better for the character of Cody and for the movie. It also lacked emotional moments like the one in the original where Penny cries and there's a song playing. I remembered this being a lot better.

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 too excellent.

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.

10/10