The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

GENRESAnimation,Adventure,Crime,Drama,Family,Fantasy,Mystery
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Bob NewhartEva GaborJohn CandyTristan Rogers
DIRECTOR
Hendel Butoy,Mike Gabriel

SYNOPSICS

The Rescuers Down Under (1990) is a English movie. Hendel Butoy,Mike Gabriel has directed this movie. Bob Newhart,Eva Gabor,John Candy,Tristan Rogers are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1990. The Rescuers Down Under (1990) is considered one of the best Animation,Adventure,Crime,Drama,Family,Fantasy,Mystery movie in India and around the world.

Cody, a 9-year-old boy from Mugwomp Flats responds to a distress call about a trapped giant Golden Eagle called Marahute. Freeing her, he gains a close friendship with the bird. However, Cody is soon abducted by the murderous poacher, Percival McLeach, who is after that bird which is of a highly endangered species and therefore an extremely profitable quarry. In a panic, a mouse Cody freed from one of McLeach's traps sends a desperate call for help to the Rescue Aid Society in New York City who assigns their top agents, Miss Bianca and Bernard, to the task. With transportation provided by the goofy albatross, Wilbur, the agents arrive in Australia and link up with the RAS' local field operative, Jake the Kangaroo Rat. Together, the trio must race against time to find Cody, stop McLeach, and save Marahute.

More

Same Director

The Rescuers Down Under (1990) Reviews

  • Completely likable sequel, that is under-appreciated!

    TheLittleSongbird2009-02-27

    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

    More
  • Underappreciated Gem

    La Gremlin2000-11-03

    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.

    More
  • Charming sequel

    wildanimals2007-11-11

    Whilst it's not as good as the original, The Rescuers Down Under is not a disgrace as far as sequels go. Many theatrical sequels tend to be no better than ones released direct-to-video. Down Under is an exception. Plot-wise, there are a few faults. Some scenes just seemed to be there for the sake of it and the plot is considerably weaker than the original. But there are enough jokes and enough suspense to keep the film going so there's never a dull moment. Some might say that the story is a rehash of the original and that is partly true. That's the only real major flaw I find in Down Under. Benard and Bianca stay wonderfully in character and the new characters, such as Jake the Kangaroo Rat are very memorable too. Penny may have had Teddy for a friend but Cody has Marahute - a mighty Golden Eagle. Her movements are true to that of a real bird of prey, and yet she has a distinct humanoid quality. Whenever you look into her eyes, you know exactly what she's thinking. Jim Jordan (the voice of Orville) is sadly dead. (God rest his soul). But instead of replacing the voice actor, we have a new albatross - Orville's brother Wilbur. He is a worthy replacement. He provides plenty of comic relief, especially during his nightmarish time in hospital. Joanna the villain's sidekick is like Madame Medusa as a lizard. She looks like she came straight out of the original. McLeach, the evil poacher is a very intimidating villain. He's not as funny as Madame Medusa but he's not meant to be. He's not the sort of person you'd like to run into in the wilderness. If there's one aspect of this film that's superior to the first, it's the animation. The computer generated shots are spectacular. Sure, they might be dated today, but I think that the hand-drawn animation melds nicely with the CGI. Whilst the jungle in Tarzan looked like plastic, the rocks and cliffs in The Rescuers Down Under look realistic and full of texture. We have a lot of 'high-flying in the clouds' scenes which are a lot of fun and would be brilliant on the IMAX screen. Also, putting a tiny mouse against a vast landscape gives the movie an epic feel. Like the first Rescuers, the backgrounds are beautiful and pave the way for the beautiful scenery seen in The Lion King. However, Down Under does have its little flaws. One example is that Cody is Australian yet he speaks with an American accent. Also, how on earth did he climb up that huge cliff? There are other little inconsistencies too but they are easily overlooked. The sequel connects nicely with the original. A lot of the RAS mice from the original are seen again. Also, a lot of character designs are true to the first as well. Benard has hardly changed at all. Only Bianca looks somewhat different. In conclusion, The Rescuers Down Under is inferior to the original Rescuers, but it's still high-flying fun. This is definitely one of the better Disney sequels. So sit back and enjoy. Remember, you *could* be watching Pocahontas II.

    More
  • Most underrated Disney movie ever!

    DirectorCarrie2011-08-27

    This has been a family favorite ever since it came out and it's sad that not many people appreciate it for what it is. This is less of a sequel and more of a separate story with only three characters (the chubby mouse in charge of the Rescue Aid Society, Wilbur, and Miss Bianca) returning, this time to rescue Cody, a young boy who is attempting to rescue animals from poachers and is kidnapped in the process. His most recent animal rescue is Marahute, the golden eagle. While disjointed in places, this film proves to be a fun little thrill ride. The main characters are fairly well-developed though typically one-dimensional. The only one who shows a character arc is Bernard, who finally has a chance to move past his superstitious, worrisome nature and find some courage. MacLeech, the poacher villain, is sufficiently creepy and his huge lizard sidekick Joanna is awesomely funny. Our family has even developed the habit for calling 'Joannaaaaaa!' whenever we see a really big lizard, so enthralled we are with the reptile. Another funny character is Frank the frilled lizard, who never fails to bring giggles. The good parts about this film are the typically wonderful animation (first animated Disney movie with computer animation!) and the AWESOME music. It's wonderful! No song-and-dance numbers and a sweeping score, composed by Bruce Broughton (Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey). The liberal use of woodwinds serves the story well, able to bring sadness in certain areas and playfulness in others. The best part in the movie is easily the flying sequence, which never fails to bring goosebumps. I would go so far as to say the third shot from the last (where Cody is pushed off the edge of the waterfall) is the best shot in Disney animation history. Overall, a fun romp that doesn't have enough appreciation.

    More
  • Can this possibly be a cartoon?

    MovieAddict20162003-08-12

    "The Rescuers Down Under" is a wonderful tale, the rare film that surpasses its original in many, many ways. It has more flair, better animation and the characters are much more interesting. It is the sequel to "The Rescuers," which was released 13 years earlier. They took their time making this sequel - and it paid off. Cartoons can often be represented in a dull fashion, and others can take your breath away - this one takes your breath away. The intrepid mouse explorers Bernard and Bianca (voices of Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor) from the original film return in "The Rescuers Down Under," when they hear word that a small boy in Australia has been kidnapped by a poacher named McLeach (voiced by the creepy George C. Scott). McLeach has also captured a large eagle, and the kidnapped boy, Cody, has a bond with the large beast. The Rescuers fly Down Under by hitching a ride on the hilarious, never over-the-top albatross Wilbur (voiced by John Candy). Once there, they pick up a local Aussie "kangaroo mouse" named Jake, who indeed resembles a miniature kangaroo. There are also some other delightful new characters, including Frank, a numbskull lizard, and Joanna the goanna lizard, the sidekick of McLeach. The key to this film is that they know how to make great characters - Joanna is just as fun to watch as Frank, and Jake is just as fun to watch as Bernard and Bianca. You never feel any hate towards any characters. My personal favorite was Wilbur, the albatross. He appears at various points in the film, caught in a mouse hospital, caught watching over eagle eggs, and caught hatching eagle eggs. He awaits the return of Bernard and Bianca, and he's too good-natured to just fly away and forget about them. And John Candy's voice talents are priceless. A lot of the amazing animation on this film takes place in the air, on the back of a soaring eagle. The animation in the original was raspy, dark and creepy. It wasn't nearly as breathtaking, or even enjoyable to watch. There also aren't any musical numbers in this film - at least not that I remember - and that also helps it out a bit. (I hated the original and its songs.) Maybe it's just me, but sometimes musical numbers don't fit into 'toons - and this is one of those. "The Rescuers Down Under" is one of the best Disney films I have ever seen. The Disney animation of the 1970s, such as "The Rescuers," was the low-point of Disney. The high-point was films like "Pinnochio." And in all honesty, this film is more interesting than both combined. It's got great animation, an intriguing and fun story, and excellent, well-developed characters. Only one thing entered my head when the credits started to roll: Can this possibly be a cartoon? 4.5/5 stars - John Ulmer

    More

Hot Search

Related Search