The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

Wow! Such a good movie.

Overrated

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Sometimes franchises don't start with excellent first installments and The Rescuers is definitively one of them. In my opinion, The Rescuers is too straight forward in story telling. The plot is good, but they could have added so much more to make it a rich and spicy tale. For example: Bianca chose to go on a mission with a concierge instead with someone that was meant for the task and that is fine, but there were no further consequences after that. Bernard seems to have no struggle in doing such a complex job. In fact Bernard was rather really cut out in doing this, which surprised me. There is also no conservation afterwards like 'Hey, Bianca why did you choose me over all the potential companions that were cut out for this job.', which was really a shame. There was also a lack of romance between Bianca and Bernard(only a nice compliment here and there), until The Rescuers Down Under was released:Not only they have managed to add the necessarily romance it needed: Bernard is going to marry Bianca. They also add a lot more humor which I truly missed in the first film. Sure some of it was childish like the frilled lizard, but also humor that really works on the older audience, like Bernard's first attempt to ask Bianca to marry back in that restaurant and that little misunderstanding with Bianca afterwards. That is just clever writing. Some of the humor in this film was just simply hilarious, especially the egg stealing scene at the poacher's home and that is just the bit of spice the first installment really needed. Not only they add spice by humor, they even add a subplot: 'Safe the eagle', which was really a rich and emotional addition, with a valuable lesson about the importance of protecting a rare species. They also add a plenty of nice features like the R.A.S. relay(in the very beginning), a chandelier as a restaurant, Riding wild animals. All these things, makes the movie run dynamic and simply satisfying to watch. The sphere in the first movie however was darker, which was not too bad, since it suited with the rather slow story telling, which did a satisfying job in creating mystery. This kinda reminds me of Don Bluth's 'The Secret of NIMH' or 'All Dogs Go to Heaven'. Both films are awfully underrated and have far more darker and stylish content to show than The Rescuers. TRDU however looks a lot more alive and you can see that every minute is well organized. There was no need to add any songs in that film. Yes, The Rescuers Down Under is a sequel that contains NO songs. Do not get me wrong, I love songs, but they are often mediocre written and they are mostly just a filler for the movie. The sequels of 'The Land before Time' are the main offenders of this. Even though The Rescuers did not contain many songs, they were fillers.The ending was rather abrupt in TRDU, but it did not felt needed for a extended end, In fact I sometimes prefer this way, because it gives you an opportunity to decide for yourself in how they will life happily ever after. In conclusion: TRDU is the prime example of an excellent sequel, maybe even the best that I have ever witnessed. It is sad to see how such an amazing film did not very well at the box office.

TV Guide said of this movie, "Three years in the making, it was obviously conceived during the height of this country's fascination with Australia, brought on by Paul Hogan's fabulously successful Crocodile Dundee. By 1990, the mania had long since subsided, and... the film doesn't make particularly imaginative use of the location. Take away the accents and the obligatory kangaroos and koalas, and the story could have taken place anywhere." That's about it: lack of imagination. The formulaic repeats and nods to the original film aren't too cleverly woven into the new context and setting, and the resulting product is rather jumbled and, unless you are a young child, unsatisfying.The (few) attempts at more sophisticated gags to appeal to a cross-generational audience don't fit well in with the story or the rest of the movie, while they were pretty much seamless in the original. The writing is overall rather sloppy and it doesn't seem much thought was given to conceivability (the reviewer who pointed out the stupidity of Jake wanting to "find a way to extend the runway!" and then immediately making use of a device clearly placed to do just that was spot-on). Granted, a story involving anthropomorphic animals is not going to attempt verisimilitude, but surely it is not too much to ask that a fantastical universe, within its own world, obey certain rules of logical coherence.There's something else: the snow take-off. This had already been done in the first movie, and with quite effective animation and beautiful drawing (with the "camp" elements such as the albatross's snow boots extremely well-placed). The only reason to re-do it here was to capitalize on the techniques that had by 1990 evolved to allow "sleeker" and "smoother," more metallic, flowing visuals and movement as was the aesthetic vogue at the time. Watching it in 2015, it is now apparent the animators made a huge mistake, and banked the differential of the new visuals largely on their technical acuity. Graphical rendering and automated animation have of course advanced considerably since that time, and consequently the updated scene has aged extremely poorly. (Also, without giving away too much, may I just say that the kind of mishap this incident leads to - and treats so cursorily and incidentally - is not funny to adults, and children should not be conditioned to think it is funny, either?)But maybe that was to be expected for a film so obviously conceived, from the start, as a consumer product catering to the fads of its time. Like all such films, this one was doomed to become a prisoner of its time. This has become abundantly clearer as the years have rolled by, and as such, it cannot be classed with the best, "timeless" Disney classics.

I am judging movies on what they suppose to be. I know, this is a film designed to appeal to children. But I have some issues with The Rescuers Down Under.It particularly disturbed me as a child, so I would not recommend it as a children movie. Mainly because the plot itself is not very suitable for a children's movie. A mentaly unstable guy hunts animals, he is looking for rare animals to imprison them and sell them for money. And one day he finds a little boy entrapped in one of his animal traps. The boy is now a witness of his criminal activity, so he decides to kidnap him... Thats good material for a thriller or action movie The boy gets imprisoned in an animal cage like all the animals. Silence of the Lambs 2, isn't it? He is far away from home and his family. Are you entertained yet? After all the boy manages to escape with the help of the famous two mice. In the grand finale the villain tries to feed off the little boy to wild crocodiles. Whats the lesson here for children? Be aware of psychopathic kidnappers? Fortunatly the bad guy drowns "by accident". He drowns and it is over. What have we learned children? Australia is not a safe place? Be aware of kidnappers? Don't go outside. If you are lucky and a kidnapper catches you, he will have an "accident". If not, you may never see your family again.

The Rescuers is one of my favorite Disney films of all time. It's subtle, beautiful, and sweet. So that's why it irks me that this movie even exists. But what irks me more is that this movie is so completely inept at even the basics of decent storytelling, which is saying a lot considering the company it came from. But what really gets me, well not furious but pretty mad, is that people actually think this is better than the original. But I'll get to that.The movie begins with Cody, a typical little boy living in the middle of absolutely nowhere who can talk to the animals with no real explanation as to how. We learn that he lost his father. And that's it, folks, the only character development we get from this character! We see him learn nothing or change in any way, he remains the same completely bland character throughout the whole movie. We're also given no explanation as to why he has an American accent when he clearly lives in the middle of the Australian Outback. Was he born in America and moved to Australia when his dad disappeared from existence with no explanation? Ah well, he gets trapped by a poacher and we're treated to 72 minutes of environmentalist agenda. But never mind that, we then get to see our main characters.And, unfortunately, they play a minor role in the movie, despite the fact they're in the title of the film. The running gag is that Bernard is trying to propose to Bianca, a pretty weak gag if you ask me. Then they go flying with what has to be the most annoying character the Disney animators of the Renaissance ever put on screen: Wilbur the albatross. And he never leaves. His subplot is never funny or necessary and it just made me very uncomfortable watching him get shot with a giant needle.And then Cody is trapped with a few characters who appear for, I guess, comic relief, but are left to rot down there because they're never shown again. Thus making that scene completely pointless. The other stupid thing in this movie is that, in the end, Bernard is standing on a weak branch holding a rope that is supporting Cody and keeping him from being washed away in a raging river. Now I know this is a cartoon but give me a break, a mouse couldn't possibly be that strong.The only thing this entire movie has is visuals. There's no denying that it's a beautiful movie. The scenery is breathtaking. But I still think it isn't as good as the first film, which was a bit more like a gorgeous watercolor painting. But I think that's more of a matter of taste because while I may prefer the subtly of the first film, you might prefer the more realistic and gorgeous Australian scenery this film offers and I think both are equally as good. But that's about all that's good about this movie.This movie looks like a good one on the surface but if you actually see it, it's clear there's nothing else to offer. Better than the original? I don't think so. This is one of the worst sequels to a REALLY good movie that I have ever seen. Skip this and watch The Rescuers. And if you're unimpressed by this, still watch The Rescuers to see how telling a story about two heroic mice is REALLY done.