Bernard et Bianca au pays des kangourous

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.

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.

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

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 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.