Bernardo e Bianca na Terra dos Cangurus

The first one was overall a cute film, definitely a classic, but nothing to scream about, you know what I mean? Anyways, as a kid I would always take characters who would look cool in some big action powered flick with high drama and adventure. Having a real evil villain that threatens death, and kick the pace up a notch from the original movie.

My wish came true, The Rescuers Down Under was a high powered animated action flick with intense drama and heart-pounding emotion. Severely different from the original, which was about two little mice sent out on a mission to save a little girl held captive by a vile woman in search for a priceless diamond. This time, a young boy named Cody was kidnapped by a poacher named McLeach, who desperately wants to enormous eagle that was just saved from captivity. Despite the dangers, these two little mice named Bernard and Miss Bianca head out on probably the most daring rescue ever assigned to the R.A.S. (Rescue Aid Society). Without a moment to lose, they hop aboard the big bird named Wilbur to a nonstop flight to Australia. From then on its just keeps getting better, and the filmmakers weren't afraid how far they strayed from the kinder hearted tone of the original. That's a good thing.

This was easily put in my top animated films, behind Beauty and the Beast and the Prince of Egypt of course. It was a little shorter than I would have liked, which doesn't make this brilliant film absolutely spotless. None the less I recommend this to anyone looking for menacing fun.

Trust me, this is a brilliant film that may be a little too intense for the younglings, but still a family film which I think will be loved by adults and kids alike.

****/**** stars

The Rescuers Down Under (1990): Rated PG for intense moments

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!"

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.

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.