The Rescuers Down Under

Ok, the setting. Walt Disney movies hadn’t been the same since Walt’sdeath.Box office success seems to elude the company and ambitious projects likeThe Black Hole don’t deliver. What’s worse, Bluth’s new company putssuccessful family animated entertainment back on the charts with TheSecretof NIMH. A big embarrassment to Disney and perhaps a wake-up call to getbackon the animated ball. So the folks at Disney came up with a sequel totheirsemi-successful Rescuers movie. I think this sequel was much better thanthefirst. Excellent story coupled with good animation and an politicallycorrect eco-care theme to boot.This movie really did deserve the success and attention it brought back tothe company. I would be willing to bet that this movie’s success provedDisney still had the stuff and probably provided the impetus to invest intheir next movie, "The Little Mermaid" … and the rest is history. Ofcourse, with the success of Mermaid, Disney has stuck with the formula ofworking off of established folk-tales for their animated fare,unfortunatelyneglecting modern themes seen in "The Secret of NIMH and this movie. Socheck this movie out to see Disney at some of its best, and before theydelved back into less risky, safe, folksy storylines responsible for theircommercial success over the past 10 years.

seriously. this is like Indy kiddie-fied. nothing against Dr. Jones by anymeans i’ve worn those 3 out over and over again. but this is one the bestSEQUELS of any kind ever. it so outdoes the original it isn’t even funny.plus this is the 1st Disney movie that was ever bought for me at thetenderage of 10 ( a milestone in it’s own right) one of the best voice castingjobs ever! Newhart and Gabor are top notch just as they were 13 yearsearlier. George C. Scott is the cartoon villain dreams are made of. andthetrue highlight along with the character of Frank is the late, great JohnCandy. i adore the work of this man even today some 8 or 9 years since hispassing and he was hilarious as always in this one. watch it! i hadn’twatched it in years it set in the closet shelf collecting dust but if youhave it break it out of wherever you’ve hid it and enjoy itagain.

thanks!

Along with The Great Mouse Detective, The Rescuers Down Under is awonderfuladventure with some early experimentation with computer animation. Acompelling story with plot complications mature enough to engage adults,thevisuals are matched by the strong voice cast including Geroge C. Scott asasuitably nasty villian. As is often Disney custom, the villian is matchedwith a comic relief side kick (in this case a mute lizard henchman). Oneofthe best examples of cinematic comic timing involves the two characterscounting eggs. I highly recommend this movie for Disney animation fans whomay have over-looked this gem.

The best Disney film I’ve seen.For me Frank the frilled Lizard was thebestcharecter and is my favorite Disney charecter!I really liked the animation and the voices really suited thecharecters.

Aside from the wider use of special effects to simulate soaring flights overland and sea and some very realistic computer generated camerawork, THERESCUERS DOWN UNDER doesn’t compare favorably in story and characters to theearlier Disney film, THE RESCUERS (’77).

For one thing, the principals Bernard and Miss Bianca don’t enter the filmuntil twenty minutes of exposition pass. The little boy in no way draws thekind of sympathy or involvement in his plight that the rescued Penny did inthe original film. He’s a mere cypher and we know next to nothing about him.The film is apparently designed as an impressive showcase for computerizedanimation techniques.

The trouble is that despite the gimmicky effects, the story content is notonly slim but unappealing, dealing as it does with an unappetizing poacher(George C. Scott) and his cohorts in a plan to get rich at the expense ofwildlife. Scott’s voice is well used for the character but fails to combinethe wickedness with the broad sense of humor we usually have in Disneyvillains. He does have a few humorous asides but nothing memorable exceptfor lines like "I didn’t go all the way through third grade fornothing."

Eva Gabor and Bob Newhart are again on hand as the voice talent for MissBianca and Bernard. John Candy’s fans will enjoy his wildly humorous stintas Wilbur the albatross. But the animation is on a lower level than theoriginal as far as the characters are concerned, with more emphasis on thebrilliant backgrounds and soaring movements that are real enough to stir upsome motion sickness after awhile.

Some of the most humorous moments in the film are supplied by Joanna, thecunning lizard used and abused by Scott’s character. Although the filmdoesn’t duplicate the charm of the original, children will probably love itssense of adventure and the boy’s soaring flights over canyons and rivers onthe back of an eagle. Does not rank among the great Disney films butchildren will probably find it engrossing enough.

After nearly two decades of disappointing animated movies, the Disneyfolks got back to winning ways in 1989 with The Little Mermaid. Thatmarked the start of a succession of five Disney cartoons in a row thatwere all of a really high quality, the five being The Little Mermaid,The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin and The LionKing. The second film on this list - The Rescuers Down Under - is arip-roaring adventure movie which is a sequel to an earlier Disneymovie made in 1977. In fact, the original The Rescuers was a prettyforgettable film and it seems extremely strange that the Disney peoplehad that particular film in mind when they decided to make a sequel.This second instalment is thankfully much more memorable, well-animatedad exciting. It’s not often that it can be said, but this is a case ofa 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 capturedin 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 heis instantly overcome with excitement, for he knows that to capturesuch a grandiose bird would make him filthy rich! McLeach kidnaps theboy 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 AidSociety…. a bunch of dare-devil mice who specialise in saving thelives of endangered children. Once again, mice agents Bernard (voice ofBob Newhart) and Bianca (voice of Eva Gabor) find themselves up totheir neck in adventure as they try to rescue young Cody from hisabductor’s lair.

The animation in this 1990 release is absolutely excellent and seems tomark a significant step forward in terms of the technology available toanimators. The story is exciting and fast-paced, with just a sprinklingof 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 andGabor as the heroes, with solid support from John Candy’s comicalalbatross and Scott’s seriously unpleasant villain. Purists might besurprised 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 shouldenthral kids and adults alike.

Just fairly decent animation, mediocre and poorly used voice talents, a badstory, lack of side-kick humor and humor altogether(grown-up humor, thatis), a horribly evil and unfunny villain, and unbelievable scenes thatalmost defy even the laws of animation …need I go on.Disney is rarely this unbalanced and unfunny, and what’s up with theAustralian boy speaking with an American accent. The likes of the greatestanimation studio in the world shouldn’t afford such blatantmistakes.This animated movie defin
itely isn’t for teenagers, let alone adults, butit’s much too dark and includes a really evil bad guy to make the youngeraudience appreciate it."The Rescuers Down Under" is a poor and uneven cartoon that makes me furtherunderstand why Pixar is and probably will be so successful. They’re able tomake both the young ones and adults have a blast. Don’t think I’ll give theoriginal one, "The Rescuers" a chance. 4/10

Bernard and Bianca return in a movie after a 13 year absence, but this timethey are headed for the land down under to look for a missing boy. That isAustalia is you didn’t know that. As the movie opens, a young boy named Cody(Adam Ryen) rushes to the help of a golden eage. She comes to his resureafter falls off the cliff by her wing. After the ride, Cody falls down ahole and is recured by a hunter named Mcleach (George C. Scott) and getskidnapped. And a call for help goes out from Australia with stops in othercites before getting send to New York, where Bianca agrees the mission tothe land down under without telling Bernard (Bob Newhart). And he and Bianca(Eva Gabor) gets a flight from an alatross named Wilbor (John Candy). Downunder they get help from Jake (Tristan Rogers). Better yet, it may be betterto stay home and see Austalia instead of taking a long flight to go downthere. But where would you want to hear "G’day" in the country itself orthis movie. G’day. 10/10

This wasn’t my favorite Disney film. I mean it is fun to watch sometimes.But it’s more for the kids than adults. I love Disney films a lot, eventhough they are meant more for children. I always felt like they shouldalsobe for adults. "The Recscuers down under" was not one ofthem.

6/10

By all accounts, the lion’s share of Disney sequels sorely lack anysemblance of the pure Disney magic that we all could come to expectfrom the films that preceded them. And it’s easy to disseminate theroot causes. They are not well storyboarded from the get-go, arecompleted outside of Disney Feature Animation’s walls, and notsurprisingly, are micromanaged into a cookie-cutter recipe from aboveby less-than-talented management.

And this has to do with "Rescuers Down Under"…how? It doesn’t, and Ilove it. Disney’s first attempt at an animated sequel was a magicalbrew of the same ingredients that made "Rescuers" endeared by so many,young and old. And what’s more, the differences between the two havemade "Down Under" down right better. This was Disney’s first foray intothe world of 3d animation, and the beauty of its use in the film isthat it’s utilized fairly sparingly, and I’m convinced that they knewthe technology wasn’t yet powerful enough to warrant use all on itsown. The color schemes give me a sense of warmth, like I assume theland down under is nearly year-round. It’s not nearly as dark and drabas its predecessor, so the sense of innocence so lost is felt on adeeper level than with Penny of the original.

"Down Under"’s opening 20 minute salvo could be categorized as itsweaker point because of its lack of the main story’s progression, but Ibeg to differ. Disney’s cornerstone formula of a magical movie-goingexperience has always been storytelling, and it’s most apparent in thefirst 20 minutes. This is when we truly know how deep the bonds runthrough the boy and the massive golden eagle not just because heinitially rescues her from a poacher’s trap, but when she rescues himfrom a perilous fall down a cliff she bumped him off from and flies himback to her nest, we know the connection is quite mutual. Now we knowthe depths that one is willing to go through to rescue the other.

The voice acting cannot go unnoticed, either. Bob Newhart and Eva Gaborreturn, respectively, as Bernard and Miss Bianca and prove thatthirteen years between the two Rescuers movies didn’t diminish theirabilities at all. Wilbur’s performance by the late great John Candymake this it as memorable as any one of his live action movies.McLeach, the evil poacher, is given new depths of eeee-vilness byGeorge C. Scott, who had definitely made his niche in thecharacterization in movies past. The glaring lack of an Australianaccent aside, Adam Ryen’s performance as Cody is right on par and wascrucial to the ability to connect with the character.

Neither can the powerful performance by Glen Keane, animatorextraordinaire of Marahute the golden eagle, go overlooked. From thefirst frame, it is very obvious that he is intimately familiar with thebody of an eagle and all its workings, and on through to the lastframe, I know that he had all the time and resources he needed tocomplete such an awesome effort.

But honestly, what kind of 8-year-old could have visualized the movieon this kind of level when it had barely come out fifteen years ago?Really, the only thing that mattered to me was that I felt a bond withthe boy, a deep-down conviction that the trials he endures arehappening to me in a different plane of being. And when the finalcredits have rolled, that is ultimately what makes or breaks such amovie, which definitely made it great.

"Rescuers Down Under" gets 9 of 10 stars