Powerful

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

Not just one of my all time favorite Disney movies, but as stated in the summary, it is one of my favorites in terms of animated movies in general (and well-worthy of being one of the best out there).I need to get the whole box office ridiculousness out of the way first though. Basically, this movie was released at exactly the same time as Home Alone (which I don't really care for) causing Disney to pull the plug on all advertising and marketing within the first week of the movie's release, causing it to suffer in the box office, but still managed to go "well" over its budget.Which is unfortunate because at the start of the movie, it begins with one of the greatest animated openings of all time by having a fast moving ground-flight simulation through a field of computer animated flowers which SOUNDS simple but when you actually see it and hear the music along with it (the composer is freaking brilliant in this movie), it gets you really excited for the whole movie and that's what the whole movie is: excitement and it never does it too often, it knows how to slow down for the viewers and the entire tone of the movie is never too childish (which is also great considering it's a G-rated movie). It's seemingly for everyone.The voice acting is fantastic (one of John Candy's best roles in his final years), whoever hired these people (minus the two mice, the main characters, that's a given that they'd be in this sequel) seemed to really care and pay attention to how well they'd fit in with this movie. Everything works, everything clicks together, the music, the voices, the characters... It's such a great film and after you've seen it once, you'll want to see it again and again and again.My only gripe with this movie is that (and it's not even really a big one) is that you have to "assume" that the animals that were captured by the villain were saved at the end which I suppose is fair considering we don't see the child's return to his mother which is another thing we must assume as well. But in a way, this could be considered a good thing, had it taken the same route by having a similar ending to the first by showing the after math of the rescue, it wouldn't have left the viewers with that sort of hyper-ventilating sensation after watching such an exciting movie (seriously, the ending is great too).I'd give it a 9 out of 10. Even after 24 years, it still holds up. One of the greats in terms of animation.

This is one film I may have seen as a child but I didn't see it in full until a few months ago on my flight home from Dubai. I watched this immediately after the original to see if it was any better or worse. In fact, it's one of those sequels that's just as good as the original (Likewise with the first two 'Home Alone' films being as funny and entertaining as each other). I will also give this film some credit for technically being the first Disney sequel ever but unlike the 'Cinderella' and 'Aladdin' sequels, this one was theatrically released and is actually part of the Disney animated Classics canon. There are certain aspects of this film that surpassed the original such as its animation being fluid and rich in cel-shading and the majority of backgrounds being more colourful than those in the first film, despite the backgrounds from that film being very artistic. What also pleased me was that Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor reprised their roles as Bernard and Bianca, which is very rare when it comes to animated sequels. Cody was a decent and fun character, although I would have liked him better if he had an Australian accent (only about four characters in this film have this accent). McLeach was a terrifying villain who was just as menacing as Madame Medusa in the original and Wilbur was a funny addition to the cast of characters, especially when he danced to an upbeat song before Bernard and Bianca asked him to fly them to Australia and several mice tried to operate on him. Joanna was a comical sidekick of McLeach's and her character trait was reminiscent of that of Brutus and Nero. Other redeeming qualities of this film were some breathtaking animation sequences (such as the eagle flight scenes) and the brief running gag of Bernard trying to propose to Bianca but getting interrupted. If I had any other gripes of this film, Cody's mother was hardly ever seen and the ending was surprising and confusing because as the film progressed, I thought the ending would show Cody reuniting with his mother when, in fact, the eagle just flew him home and this was followed by Wilbur being stranded in the cliff, calling out for Bernard and Bianca and hatching the eggs. When I first saw this film in its entirety, I thought it was McLeach that was calling out to the heroic mice but after close inspection, he had actually fallen to his death down a waterfall, which took Disney villain deaths to a new level.Overall, this was a thrilling film that was every bit as entertaining as the original, despite its unexpected flaws. 8/10.

The Rescuers Down Under (1990) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Sequel to the 1977 film has an Australian boy being kidnapped by a poacher because he learns that the kid knows the location of a golden eagle and its eggs. Soon the Rescue Aid Society are informed and both Bernard and Bianca are on their way. THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER was considered a major flop when it was first released and I must admit that it's somewhat shocking that Disney would select THE RESCUERS as a film to make a sequel to. Not that the original film is bad but there's certainly many better known titles out there that they could have done a sequel to and I'm sure they would have gone over better with crowds. Either way, this film isn't nearly as good as the original and I think this is mainly due to the story here not being all that good. We've got the same concept of what we saw in the original but the biggest change is that we're now in Australian, which I'm sure was in response to CROCODILE DUNDEE being such a hit. There are a few things that really work here including an amazing opening sequence where the boy ends up on the back of the eagle and goes for an incredibly fun journey through the clouds. If the rest of the film had more scenes like this one then it would have been much better. I also thought that the animation was great but then again you expect this from Disney. Both Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor are good reprising their roles and we get John Candy and George C. Scott doing fine work as well. THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER is far from a bad movie but it never quite reaches the level of the first film, which wasn't a classic either.