Bianca e Bernie nella terra dei canguri

"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.

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 -

John Ulmer

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

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.

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.

I love this movie. I saw the original on the cinema when it was re-released and then of course saw this. It is in my opinion the only decent sequel Disney has ever made.(2D animation anyway, Toy Story 2 is superb) All the others have been straight-to-video and terrible. (Lady and the Tramp 2/Pocahontas 2 etc) The animation in Down Under is superb, the voice talent outstanding, and the villain in the shape of John McCleach very very funny. There are no songs, and actually, you don't notice the lack of them. I think it works better. The best line in the film has to be McCleachs' boast: "I didn't make it all the way through third grade for nothing!"