Bernard et Bianca au pays des kangourous

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.

Having been a fan of the Rescuers which was a compelling and underrated film in my opinion, I heard that Disney made a sequel to this 13 years later. I was like, "Dang. That's a pretty long time to fully develop a sequel. Sure, Return to Oz, the sequel to The Wizard of Oz, was released 46 years later, but it's a little bit difficult to compare the two even though The Wizard of Oz wasn't made by Disney to begin with. With that said, "The Rescuers Down Under" fully captivated me when I first saw it and given it's number #11 spot at top 11 underrated nostalgic classics made by Nostalgia Critic himself, I personally agree that like The Rescuers, this is one of the most under-appreciated films and a better one at that (along with Aladdin and the King of Thieves, The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, and Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time)

The storyline, like the original, is very good and much more engaging with lots of great suspense throughout the film along with some great flying moments with Marahute, which really wowed me the first time I saw her. The characters are as likable as they were in the first film especially Bernard and Biana. The new characters including the rousing Australian mouse named Jake and the hilarious seagull Wilbur along with the other animals attempting to guide Cody were enjoyable to see and Cody, despite his unnatural dialog due to his accent that several users commented on, is at least likable. The main villain Percival M. Mcleach, although not on par with some of my favorite Disney villains, is a great menacing bad-guy with an excellent voice-work from George C. Scott. In fact, the voice acting was pretty good especially John Candy's. The music from Bruce Broughton is excellent and fitted really well for the action moments in the movie and even the pacing is very brisk.

Overall, The Rescuers Down Under may not be one of Disney's greatest films ever made, but much like The Rescuers, this is a greatly underrated sequel that deserves much more recognition. Besides, it's a shame that a Rescuers 3 hasn't been made.

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 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 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