The Rescuers Down Under - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Rescuers Down Under Reviews

Page 1 of 79
September 28, 2016
Man, talk about an underrated Disney film. I saw this film for the first time several years ago, and years later said to myself, "you know, I gotta see that movie again. I don't remember much". So I found it at my local thrift store and you know what? This film is pretty solid. Just to clarify, as much as I love Disney, The Rescuers is one of the Disney films I find mediocre. It just didn't leave much of an impact on me like other Disney films. So to learn years back that there was a sequel to it was weird. But I watched it at a friend's house and I enjoyed it much more than the original. One of the redeeming qualities of this movie is the animation. It's breathtaking. Of course you'd expect it from Disney, but think of how many action-adventure films the studio has. Not many, and to see some faster paced scenes was very cool. The characters are also pretty likeable. Cody is the bravest kid ever. It has some good comedy, action, and the villain is great. The story itself is nothing really groundbreaking, but it's a bit better than the original's narrative. More people definitely need to see this movie. The one problem with the movie is the fact that the other captured animals aren't rescued. It felt wrong to me. Bottom line, The Rescuers Down Under may not have made as big an impact as other Disney films, but it's a fun, exiting, and visually dazzling adventure.
August 15, 2016
Better than the original! There is so much going on in The Rescuers Down Under that it felt like an adventure.
August 12, 2016
This was actually Disney's first sequel out of the 29 movies they'd made up until this point, and it certainly feels like one. A pretty enjoyable movie for the most part, with marvelous animation that spans the outback of Australia with picturesque views, and an arrangement of new, exotic animals that add to the wonder of the setting. The problem is that it all feels a little too familiar, reusing a lot of the formula that made the first movie so good, except with less of the laughs, and not as much fun. This one didn't too well at the box-office which isn't hard believe since it had to follow the success of The Little Mermaid, but it's still has a lot to offer in terms of visual splendor and heart.
½ August 5, 2016
There is no doubt that this is a better film than it's predecessor great though it was and it isn't just the animation. The characters are all much more defined particularly Bernard who sometimes felt like bland comic relief in the usual disney style previously, and the thrills seem much more defined with a far better musical score than before. By making the possibly accidental decision to leave out dancing sex symbols with tails disney embraced something that felt far more tealistic even though it does have talking kangaroos and somehow that raises the stakes much higher. Out of all the underated films in the disney pantheon, this film might pip them all to the post. Speaking of which...
July 11, 2016
This is what the first one should be, it's like they took the plot of the first one to make it incredible
July 6, 2016
An incredibly underrated Disney film. While the story is not all that unique, it's a really fun movie with great animation, visuals, and actors do a really good job. I highly recommend watching this film. It's an incredible adventure from one of the best animation studios.
½ July 5, 2016
I would dare to say it's worth it just for the visuals, but the story and enjoyable characters do work, even better than it's predecessor, making it one of Disney's most underrated little flicks.
½ July 1, 2016
The Rescuers Down Under is one of my favourite Disney movies ever, and maybe the best Disney sequel ever. It is fun, heartfell and visually amazing. The main villain is scary, the story is thrilling, and the characters are great.
Super Reviewer
½ June 1, 2016
Harmless, but also lacklustre
½ May 19, 2016
The Rescuers Down Under is definitely too problematic in its structure as it is overstuffed with characters and sometimes not as well connected in its subplots plus it isn't the most memorable Disney film, but it surely is an underappreciated, solid animated sequel that benefits from some pretty strong and at times quite inspired animation, some majestic sequences, just awesome score, likable characters and such a fun, adventurous tone to it.
May 11, 2016
This Rescuers sequel manages to be better than the original by improving the animation and giving great visuals, and great emotional moments
½ April 2, 2016
It is enough to have perverted cartoon!!,as if pedophilia is the same invincible!!
½ March 31, 2016
Good but not as much as The Rescuers which remains the best adventures of Bernard and Bianca!
March 28, 2016
Adorable. This charming story of mice trying to save a kidnapped little boy is full of good humor, cute characters, and a great cast of Australian animals. My main gripe is that there are too few Australian accents in it. Great for kids, good but not great for adults.
February 19, 2016
holds up real well fun and heart warming
½ January 27, 2016
There are few Disney animated movies that present as many innovative firsts as "Rescuers Down Under." To name the most obvious:
First Disney animated sequel.
First animated film to utilized digital ink-and-paint (making this, technically, the first computer animated movie, pre-dating "Toy Story" by five years. The colors in this film are gorgeous.)
First Disney animated film to utilize CAPS (Computer Animated Production System.) Most importantly: first animated film that moved and behaved like a modern adventure movie with sustained action sequences not unlike the best of Stephen Spielberg's "Indiana Jones" series.
The film holds onto audiences and never lets go from the break-neck speed of the opening credits, directly leading into the extended flying sequences of Cody and the giant eagle Marahootay. Never before has an animated film allowed viewers to soar over valleys, plummet down cliffs and buildings, and THROUGH environments with such clarity and ease. All animated features following "Rescuers Down Under," from "Aladdin," "Lion King," "Incredibles" to, well, everything released today, owe their allegiance to this film.
On a story level, the movie works, even though it's visual effects outweigh the risks taken within the story department. Perhaps the biggest complaint I had, (and still have,) with "Rescuers Down Under" is that the central characters Bernard and Bianca are over-shadowed by every newcomer including (but not invited to) George C. Scott's McLeach, Jake the fearless kangaroo rat, and the hilarious, (and slightly annoying,) chatter-box albatross Wilbur voiced by John Candy. There are surprisingly few scenes in this film that show Bernard and Bianca interacting and discussing the meat of the story with each other; the breakneck speed of this film leaves little room for small-talk conversations, and I long for scenes like the original 1977 Rescuers where the two mice plan whether or not to take a shortcut through the zoo. In that regard, I felt just as annoyed as Bernard each and every time he got interrupted in his bid to ask Miss Bianca for her hand in marriage. I also found the third act a bit rushed, especially considering the fact that Cody hardly got a chance to even say hello to Bernard and Bianca before his rescue.
Yet this movie still works. On so many levels, it is up there with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and 101 Dalmatians as far as technical achievements. While it is not praised as much today as it was in the early 90's, it still delivers a great deal of "wow" in the visual department. The older generation will appreciate the fact that Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor reprised their roles as the two title characters. And this film is a ton of wholesome laughs.
January 24, 2016
The visuals are top-notch!
December 29, 2015
"The Rescuers Down Under" is an odd entry in the Disney Canon. It was made during the Disney Renaissance but feels like a cheap transitional piece between "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast." The film had a lot of potential and Disney missed the boat. The writers already had the well-developed characters of Bernard and Bianca from 1977's "The Rescuers," the Australian outback setting was well-suited for an epic journey, and the setting also provided the animators with an opportunity to showcase never-before animated animals. Instead, the main characters don't do much (perhaps the story would have been better without them?), the setting isn't really utilized (the film really could have taken place anywhere), and there is less than 5 minutes of screen time for the koala and kangaroos. The story screams "direct-to-video Disney sequel" as it is a total copycat of the bad-guy-forcing-a-kid-to-help-him-do-something-illegal plot from its 1977 predecessor. Even though the animation is consistent with the impressive Disney Renaissance style, the story is a disappointment compared to other films from this time period. The film boasts the voice acting talents of George C. Scott, Eva Gabor, Bob Newhart, and John Candy, but that is a moot point with a weak story and script. It is not surprising that this film underperformed at the box office and perhaps this was Disney's wake-up call to include musical sequences and singing characters in the highly successful films that followed this one for the next 9 years. Note that the Disney Renaissance came to a close when the studio strayed away from musicals, and also note the comeback that occurred when "Tangled' and "Frozen" hit the scene. Too much of this film is wasted on Frank, who may be the most annoying animated character I've ever seen. He is like the reincarnation of Gurgi from "The Black Cauldron." Goanna is equally annoying. But the most annoying thing is that the film introduces characters and then they never appear again. This includes the Rescue Aid Society members, all of the animals at McLeach's ranch, the hospital mice, Cody's mom, and the kangaroo that helps Cody at the beginning. Then the film ends with very little resolution. "The Rescuers Down Under" has a few beautiful sequences and impressive animation, but its poor storytelling and disjointedness make it feel like an incomplete direct-to-video sequel.
Super Reviewer
½ October 15, 2015
A barely passable sequel that is not that much better than the detestable first film, off to a good start and with amusing moments (especially in the flight scenes) up until halfway through when it starts to become aimless and forgettable like most pre-Disney Renaissance productions.
½ September 24, 2015
Often overlooked amongst the giants of the 90's Disney era, "The Rescuers Down Under" has enjoyed a more than modest following in the decades since. It's easy to see why, given its relatively unique quality within the infamous pool of Disney sequels. Yet, even with all its successes (and it is a successful movie), I can still understand why it was quickly forgotten.

The main assets are, as anyone who has seen it has noticed, the impressive production values. Unlike the original, which felt much more old-fashioned and subdued in its style, the images and characters have a much smoother and more detailed look, and the movement is more fluid. It would be an understatement to say that this is a very good looking movie. Most are quick to point out the flying scenes when discussing this (fittingly so), although I think it is unfair to heap so much praise on a film because of one early sequence. There is an equally impressive scene, where the 3 mice attempt to infiltrate Mcleach's vehicle and the "camera" goes through one long shot throughout the mechanisms of the vehicle. Some of the animals, particularly Marahute and Joanna, are remarkably life-like and expressive, far more so than the occasionally amusing, mostly annoying local critters cursed with voices.

As far as voice performances go, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor remain at the top of their game as Bernard and Ms. Bianca, bringing an endearing quality that is welcome. Adam Ryen makes a decent effort to bring life to the new "child in distress", Cody, though his inhuman bravery can be bothersome; Penny brought the correct blend of bravery and child-like vulnerability to the screen. However, John Candy is wrong for the role of Wilbur, the albatross. His voice is too recognizable, a fact not helped by the slew of rapid fire lines the script gives him.

The standout, though, is definitely George C. Scott as Percival Mcleach, one of the few elements with which the sequel made a definite improvement. He is completely in control of every scene he is in, bringing a degree of menace that befits his role as an almost obsessive poacher, but also displaying wit and cunning; pay attention to his endlessly amusing double act with Joanna. Mcleach really is the main reason to watch this movie, and perhaps the most fully realized individual therein.

There are two not insignificant faults that ultimately prevent this from being an improvement over its predecessor: the story and treatment of the characters. Regardless of what anyone says regarding any other aspect of "The Rescuers Down Under", it is undeniable that the story is wafer-thin. At its bare bones, it is simply a retread of that of "The Rescuers", with the mice getting a distress call to rescue a child that has been kidnapped because the kidnapper needs the child in order to obtain something valuable. It's told with less feeling, and often on autopilot. Consider the rushed climax or choppy middle act, which tries to juggle 3 subplots, 2 of which are little more than distractions, and none of which give us much reason to care for the key players. The first 10 minutes show considerable ingenuity that fails to resonate, because populated areas do not figure into the rest of the story. I think a much more interesting matter could have been drawn from the operations of these mice alongside humanity.

This matter is only exacerbated by how the characters are handled this time around. While I very much liked the two lead mice, it only left me all the more let down by the fact that they have very little to do here. Unlike "The Rescuers", where they actively investigate, plan and discuss the situation, Ms. Bianca and Bernard's part in the story is told in broad strokes. With the exception of the climax, their story mostly amounts to getting from point A to point B, showing the bare minimum of what they go through. There is a nice subplot with Bernard planning to propose to Bianca, but constantly being interrupted; this made for a few engaging moments, particularly one where the two of them are briefly alone together before a snake appears. The movie really needed more moments like this where the relationship between these two could truly be conveyed. Bianca, who once served as an active encouraging influence for Bernard, now mainly has the purpose of looking cute; she is no longer the kind of character that acts. Also, given that they are clearly in a relationship, am I the only one bothered by her seeming indifference to Bernard being relegated to a third-wheel half the time? Nonetheless, it was satisfying to see Bernard step out of his comfort zone and work out the situation, even if it feels obligatory and rushed.

While The Rescuers Down Under is a commendable, and quite funny, effort at continuing the story of an older Disney film, it falls a little short of its predecessor. Today, there seems to be a growing number of people that claim it was underrated during the time of its release. I will admit to that, but it was not to a considerable degree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these same people give it too much credit. There was plenty to behold in the visual department, but not enough to make me care beyond a superficial level, a stark weakness when its contemporaries aspired to considerable emotional resonance.
Page 1 of 79