Avaliações de usuários

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

Whilst it's not as good as the original, The Rescuers Down Under is not a disgrace as far as sequels go. Many theatrical sequels tend to be no better than ones released direct-to-video. Down Under is an exception.

Plot-wise, there are a few faults. Some scenes just seemed to be there for the sake of it and the plot is considerably weaker than the original. But there are enough jokes and enough suspense to keep the film going so there's never a dull moment. Some might say that the story is a rehash of the original and that is partly true. That's the only real major flaw I find in Down Under.

Benard and Bianca stay wonderfully in character and the new characters, such as Jake the Kangaroo Rat are very memorable too. Penny may have had Teddy for a friend but Cody has Marahute - a mighty Golden Eagle. Her movements are true to that of a real bird of prey, and yet she has a distinct humanoid quality. Whenever you look into her eyes, you know exactly what she's thinking. Jim Jordan (the voice of Orville) is sadly dead. (God rest his soul). But instead of replacing the voice actor, we have a new albatross - Orville's brother Wilbur. He is a worthy replacement. He provides plenty of comic relief, especially during his nightmarish time in hospital. Joanna the villain's sidekick is like Madame Medusa as a lizard. She looks like she came straight out of the original. McLeach, the evil poacher is a very intimidating villain. He's not as funny as Madame Medusa but he's not meant to be. He's not the sort of person you'd like to run into in the wilderness.

If there's one aspect of this film that's superior to the first, it's the animation. The computer generated shots are spectacular. Sure, they might be dated today, but I think that the hand-drawn animation melds nicely with the CGI. Whilst the jungle in Tarzan looked like plastic, the rocks and cliffs in The Rescuers Down Under look realistic and full of texture. We have a lot of 'high-flying in the clouds' scenes which are a lot of fun and would be brilliant on the IMAX screen. Also, putting a tiny mouse against a vast landscape gives the movie an epic feel. Like the first Rescuers, the backgrounds are beautiful and pave the way for the beautiful scenery seen in The Lion King.

However, Down Under does have its little flaws. One example is that Cody is Australian yet he speaks with an American accent. Also, how on earth did he climb up that huge cliff? There are other little inconsistencies too but they are easily overlooked.

The sequel connects nicely with the original. A lot of the RAS mice from the original are seen again. Also, a lot of character designs are true to the first as well. Benard has hardly changed at all. Only Bianca looks somewhat different.

In conclusion, The Rescuers Down Under is inferior to the original Rescuers, but it's still high-flying fun. This is definitely one of the better Disney sequels. So sit back and enjoy. Remember, you *could* be watching Pocahontas II.

There is a lot to look at during the movie, but most kids don't watch animated films for the scenery. Characters are well developed at the expense of a satisfactory ending. Wilbur, voiced by John Candy & Frank, voice by Wayne Robson are great additions to the rescuers' cast. My beef with the film is at the end when Gordy says let's go home, there are the loose ends of the poor animals still in cages that we don't see freed and we never get to see joy on Gordy's Mother's face on his return from the dead. I guess they just ran out of ink.

The Rescuers Down Under is one of the few times when the sequel is better than the original. The animation is impressive, the plot is engaging and it doesn't have any boring musical interludes. It also has more humor than The Rescuers, which my kids (and my wife) appreciated.

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.

The first Disney sequel is often overlooked when people consider the studio's so-called 'renaissance' period, which is a bit of a shame. ' The Rescuers Down Under (1990)' is an entertaining adventure that follows the further exploits of its eponymous mice as they're called down to Australia to free a kidnapped boy from his poacher captor. It isn't as focused on its lead characters as you might expect, as a lot of screen-time is given to the stolen child and his various escape attempts. Bernard and Miss Bianca are as compelling a pair as ever, though, and the movie comes together satisfyingly. It's enjoyable and charming enough, even if it does feel a little lacking in some aspects. It doesn't have the near wistful tone of its predecessor, for example, and this lends it a somewhat generic feel. The opening moments are so over the top that they feel as though they're part of a dream sequence. The piece isn't bad, of course. It's fun and fairly fast-paced, with a decent set of characters and some solid animation. The villain and his companion are suitably cruel, too. They stand out from their peers in more ways than one, elevating the film's genuine stakes. In the end, this is a solid entry into Disney's catalogue. It isn't as good as the first flick, but it's entertaining enough. 6/10

"The Rescuers Down Under," the 1990 sequel to Disney's "The Rescuers," takes audiences on a thrilling adventure to the Australian Outback. The story follows the heroic mice duo, Bernard and Miss Bianca, voiced by Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor, as they embark on a mission to rescue a young boy named Cody who has been kidnapped by the villainous poacher, McLeach.

The film excels in its stunning animation, which vividly brings the rugged landscapes of Australia to life. The high-flying sequences, especially those involving Cody and the majestic golden eagle, Marahute, are visually impressive and exhilarating.

Despite its engaging action and beautiful animation, the film's plot can feel somewhat straightforward, lacking the emotional depth of its predecessor. The characters, while charming, don't have as much development, which might leave some viewers wanting more.

Overall, "The Rescuers Down Under" is an enjoyable film that combines adventure, humor, and heart. It may not be a standout in Disney's vast catalog, but it offers a fun and visually captivating experience that's perfect for family viewing.

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!"

Not bad for a Disney sequel.

Considering I don't like the original film all that much, I wasn't expecting anything from 'The Rescuers Down Under'. For the most part, I was right. However, relatively speaking this is decent.

It does feel like a retread for the majority, but there's enough new stuff to at least appreciate minorly. It's also good that Bob Newhart (Bernard) and Eva Gabor (Miss Bianca) returned, even thirteen years on from 'The Rescuers'. John Candy is a terrific addition, arguably giving the most memorable performance across both productions as Wilbur.

This one does have improved comedy and a solid score, to be fair. The story just isn't thrilling enough and feels too similar to the one featuring six-year-old Penny. It isn't anything terrible though, which is a positive given what I mentioned higher up.

I had the Flu and I woke up to find my 15 year-old sister was watching this film and I was thinking, my God! I sat through it, though, and It turned out to be pretty good.

I Liked the original Rescuers a lot. There's just something about Disney you can't resist. ( ADVICE TO ALL PROFESSIONAL ACTORS : If you're career is in trouble go for a Disney film---you can't go wrong! )

Eva Gabor and Bob Newhart were great as Miss Bianca and Bernard, they made the movie ( hullo, they're only the lead characters ) Jake got on my nerves. I don't know why but her did. I didn't like how he interfered with Miss B and Bernard, and he was written poorly for a hero. It's usually the villains who have the cheap lines.

Red was hilarious. I thought he was one of the best Disney villains in years. Joanna was just great. She was my favorite character in the entire movie. She made me laugh whenever she came on screen and the name really fit the character ( it's an inside joke ). All in all this film's a keeper.

8.5/10

THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER is generally considered superior to its predecessor. I recall a certain internet critic personality, now disgraced, who acted as though the original were some creaky relic and the sequel was far more exciting, better fulfilling the potential of the premise of this series. And for those who don't like slower paced stories, I can see why this would be considered better to them-- that and the child character in the sequel is more palatable than the diabetes-inducing kid in the older one. For my part, I think the original was a nice movie: and by nice I mean, competently made and entertaining enough to watch once or twice.

I also think it is way better than this movie in almost every way.

I agree that the animation is pretty, if sometimes a bit shaky when the animators try using CG (it was 1990 after all), but the story is a meandering mess, overburdened with obnoxious comic relief. It's a case where Bernard and Bianca barely feel like characters in their own movie because far more attention is given to bumbling sidekick characters, who will either charm you or annoy the hell out of you (you can probably tell how I felt about them). It's a shame because this movie does have a fine villain in the theatrical but incredibly sadistic Mcleach and some breathtaking flying scenes, but it never gels together into a satisfying whole.

I am of the opinion that Bernard and Bianca are some of the most underrated characters in the Disney library. I find them really cute together and they bounce of each other really well with their opposing personalities.

And the reason I'm rating this lower than the original rescuers is because of that reason, they aren't in the movie as much as I'd like em to be. And the other characters aren't really enough to fill that void for me. And the love triangle is whatever. I found the villain serviceable but not nearly as entertaining or memorable like Medusa

The mouse society is still the coolest part and I think this expands it in a great way. But the story doesn't really do that much differently from the first movie, which is fine in my opinion.

So yeah. Rescuers nr.1 is still superior but I'd definitely recommend this if you liked the original.

Now the RAS are clearly not a very global organisation as they have to parachute in (via albatross) "Miss Bianca" and "Bernard" all the way from New York to Australia in search of the missing nine year old "Cody". What's happened to him? Well, he happened upon a trapped golden eagle high on a cliff top and released her. Whilst earning her undying affection, he also succeeded in earning the enmity of the bird's hunter "McLeach". This man, and his hapless hench-salamander "Joanna" already have a fair amount to species in their underground collection so it now falls to our determined mice and the young boy to free these critters and keep "Marahute" and her three eggs safe from this nasty poacher and his hungry pal. I quite enjoyed this. It plays a little too much to Aussie stereotype now and again, but there is plenty of fun in the adventure with some amiable characterisations - I liked "Joanna" and the rather grumpy koala - as we tear along for a quickly paced and enjoyable sequel to the 1977 story (who knew mice lived that long!?). Nope, you won't remember it for long - but it passes eighty minutes enjoyably enough.

"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

I have been watching this movie since I was a kid. Its a great movie. It shows a good background towards how to treat animals and how its not right to poach them like McCleach did and how you should always help them if there in terrible trouble. I cry a lot when I see this movie. I especially cry at the scene where McCleach captures the eagle. The ending I like because its real happy. The music goes real good with this movie. If anyone is looking for a movie thats good with comedy and with animal protection. Its this one definitely. Its says at the end Special Thanks to San Diego Wild Animal Park. Those of you that haven't watched this movie please watch it you will cry your eyes out.

Released after the triumph that was "The Little Mermaid" and before the glories of "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King," "The Rescuers Down Under" was a film that, though moderately successful, doesn't classify as one of the studio's best. However, the film does have its highlights, from the casting to wondrous animated sequences.

Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor reprise their roles from the original ("The Rescuers") as rodents that respond to a distress call from The Australian Outback. Aided by a daffy albatross, well-played by John Candy, the pair make their way "down under" and come upon a sinister poacher (George C. Scott). The poacher is aided by a not-too-bright salamander named Joanna (Frank Welker). The exchanges between the poacher and his aide are hilarious, making the lizard one of the film's strong points.

Other pluses is the eagle family, spectacularly animated as it soars in the sky. The film's opening sequence is a genuine masterpiece, standing as one of the best ever for an animated film.

Bruce Broughton's score is particularly exciting, befitting the setting and the storyline.

This is a sequel to the adventurous "The Rescuers" from Disney, a story about two mice named Bernard and Miss Bianca from the Rescue Aid Society out to rescue a boy named Cody and his golden eagle friend Marahute from kidnapping poacher, Percival McLeach, in Australia. He is after the endangered species bird for its profitable quarry. As a result, the rescuing Bernard and Bianca team up with the society's local field operative, Jake The Kangaroo Rat, to find Cody, stop McLeach and save Marahute.

This movie, Disney's 29th full-length animated feature film and the only such film to be a sequel, is like a daring and fun action-adventure movie, but with animals serving as the protagonists. It's non-stop adventure from Cody freeing Marahute to Bernard and Miss Bianca going through rushing waters to rescue Cody.

All the characters, especially the critters, are lovable and memorable. The subplot of Cody and his newly-formed friendship with the eagle he rescued is interwoven into the main plot very well, expanding on the "Rescuers" topic of the movie.

This movie, like its prequel, is probably one of the more obscure of Disney films as it does not utilize the fairytale method. I personally like "The Rescuers" more because I thought it was more charming and heartfelt and contained more unforgettable songs. But, this movie is nonetheless one of the more exciting Disney features that would sure delight an audience of all ages.

Grade B

Just fairly decent animation, mediocre and poorly used voice talents, a bad story, lack of side-kick humor and humor altogether(grown-up humor, that is), a horribly evil and unfunny villain, and unbelievable scenes that almost defy even the laws of animation ...need I go on. Disney is rarely this unbalanced and unfunny, and what's up with the Australian boy speaking with an American accent. The likes of the greatest animation studio in the world shouldn't afford such blatant mistakes. This animated movie definitely isn't for teenagers, let alone adults, but it's much too dark and includes a really evil bad guy to make the younger audience appreciate it. "The Rescuers Down Under" is a poor and uneven cartoon that makes me further understand why Pixar is and probably will be so successful. They're able to make both the young ones and adults have a blast. Don't think I'll give the original one, "The Rescuers" a chance. 4/10