The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

You won't be disappointed!

A Masterpiece!

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This film was relatively unpopular due to being released between The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, but like the Nostalgia Critic says, it is one of Disney's most under-appreciated and underrated films. The Rescuers Down Under is a substantial improvement over The Rescuers (at least in my opinion) due to having more engaging action (the flight scenes are just magnificent), better characters (I found the new characters and their development to be more intriguing), and funnier comedy. I didn't really care for Madame Medusa, Brutus, and Nero, but I could say the opposite for Percival McLeach and Joanna. They were more dark and threatening than Medusa and the crocodiles, and had a better way to be removed from the story (I am not a fan of ambiguity, though I don't know if that would add to The Rescuers' score, subtract from Down Under's score, or both). The best part is that this sequel was made before Disney Sequels were even established as the company's toilet, and the sad thing is that just because it's a sequel, people are looking over it in favor of other Renaissance films. (Keep in mind that this was released 4 years before The Return of Jafar, the first thing considered a Disney Sequel.)

The second film of the so called Disney Renaissance and the only one of them not to be a musical. And because of that, often a very overlooked and forgotten film. Which, I suppose, makes sense. All of the other Renaissance films are certainly more memorable than this one, and are such an integral part of the childhood of anyone who grew up in the 90s.But this film certainly has a lot of good things going for it. The animation, for one, is absolutely gorgeous. The first scene alone, with a long, zooming shot over the outback, is worth the price of admission alone. The flying scenes and the variety of gravity-defying camera angles are also stunning in multitude of ways, the character designs are both creative and flawless, the colours are vibrant and the whole film has a really good feel to it.It's also both nice and very odd to see a sequel in the actual Disney canon. Not that I approve of Disney sequels in general, for obvious reasons, but if you had to make one for any film in the Disney legacy, The Rescuers is one of the stronger candidates. I mean, the original film ends in a cliffhanger of all things.Unfortunately the film suffers from almost the same problems the original film did. The story, while perfectly passable, is not very exciting, especially when compared to the other Disney films of the time. A kid is in danger and somehow it falls to two mice to do the rescuing. The plot is mostly an excuse for some action scenes, a lot of character-based oddness and for the nice animation to shine. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but it's simply not all that ambitious.The characters are also once again equally bland. The eponymous rescuers, Bernard and Miss Bianca, are both fine, but nothing overly special. The villain is a nice deviation from the norm, but fails to be very memorable. The supporting characters are probably the best thing about this film, aside from the animation, but even they can't hold a candle to other Disney side characters that debuted in the 90s.And that's The Rescuers sequel. It's good, but not great. A fun little adventure for the children, but lacking that spark that would make you watch it again and again even as an adult.

Entertaining sequel to "The Rescuers" sees Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor back to voice the characters of Bernard and Bianca mouse of the rescue service, which operates out of the UN to help children in need, and in this tale a young boy living in Australia has been abducted by an evil poacher called Mr. McLeach(voiced by George C. Scott) who wants the boy to lead him to a large and rare eagle that he wants to kill, but the boy refuses. It is up to Bernard and Bianca to save the day again... Though not as charming and moving as the first, this still is a respectable effort, with a worthwhile message and an ambitious visual approach. Shame there wasn't a third adventure...

Disney has had a history of taking touching, beautiful movies that were entertaining and high quality and using them as a crutch for really poor sequels, prequels and "midquels" that have no effort put into them and are just made to make a quick profit. Seriously, Disney executives, have you no knowledge of what Walt was all about when it came to movies? Down Under is the exact opposite. It takes a boring if not slightly humorous movie from 20 years prior and makes a dark, emotionally touching thrill ride of a sequel on armored vehicles and giant eagles. It takes McLeach, no more than a humble poacher trying to make a dishonest buck, and turns him into a cut-throat knife-wielding killer who may very well be one of the smartest villains Disney ever produced. Hell, it makes AN ALBATROSS (voiced by John Candy) GETTING MEDICAL TREATMENT into an exciting subplot. Only in this movie, people, only in THIS movie.The visuals and CGI are spectacular, the shots of the golden eagle being some of the best. The heroes, the villains, and the support cast are all fun to watch; even McLeach's pet lizard-komoto-dragon-salamander-thingy is worth a few laughs. There are no musical numbers, forced or otherwise, to interfere with this movie's grand performance. Without a doubt, one of the most underrated unacknowledged MOVIES, Disney's or anyone else's, of all time. Why this didn't explode into a franchise is anyone's guess.Unless you're a Disney executive.