|English subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Arabic subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Arabic subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Chinese subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Chinese subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Spanish subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Bengali subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Brazilian Portuguese subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Danish subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Greek subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||one year ago|
|Dutch subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||2 years ago|
|English subtitles The Rescuers Down Under||2 years ago|
The good and the bad of 'The Rescuers Down Under'
8/10 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.one year ago
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.
Pure Disney entertainment
10/10 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.one year ago
Epic, one of Disney's underrated gems
10/10 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.one year ago
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 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.one year ago
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.
Can this possibly be a cartoon?
9/10 "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 away.one year ago
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 -