In 1977, Disney released "The Rescuers," which was a charming film that was simple and quite understated. It had very dark aspects for being a children’s movie, and the animation was very simple, but the overall finished product was a charming production. 13 years later in 1990, Disney released its sequel, "The Rescuers Down Under." The production and stylistic techniques had been much improved after those 13 years, and so the end result was a very polished and exciting movie. Everything it did was leaps and bounds higher than the original. Where the original "The Rescuers" was slow-paced and had a rough art design, the sequel had defined, refined and amazingly animated characters and was bombastic, hardly ever slowing down.
The animation… it was a joy to watch. Some scenes weren’t as beautiful as others (the opening was hard to top)j, but everything was still brilliantly drawn and animated. The way the characters dance about the screen (most notably the villain) and all ways the animals moved about are so well-done that I’m hard-pressed to think of another film of the time that did it as good. It is very obvious that they spent a considerable amount of time on the animation to make it as perfect as possible. It is also important to note that it was created by Walt Disney Feature Animations, which is odd for a sequel -- most Disney sequels aren’t given this kind of attention and budget, and it shows in the animation, sometimes decently, and sometimes absolutely terribly.
The music is just as epic as the visuals. Loud and swooning, it conveys all that you would expect it to in a high-energy Australian adventure film. There is an obvious main theme that is repeated throughout, but it isn’t underplayed or overplayed; it shows up at just the right times and is composed in just the right way that it is catchy and yet won’t get stuck in the viewer’s head. I don’t mean to say that the music is forgettable, although I have forgotten it already, but it isn’t too generic and dramatically adds to the experience.
The characters are played by the same principal voice-actors, with Bob Newhart as Bernard and Eva Gabor as Miss Bianca, but some other talents have been introduced, such as the always wonderful John Candy as Wilbur and the terrific George C. Scott as McLeach. While the villain’s only desire is money, George C. Scott portrays McLeach so entertainingly I’m willing to overlook that little fact. Wilbur takes the place of Orville, which I am completely fine with (I first thought that they had simply replaced the voice actor of Orville with John Candy, which would not be all right), since John Candy is as amazing as he always is and provides a good comic relief and is still very entertaining see. The child actor Adam Ryen who played Cody was actually quite good. He wasn’t annoying like Penny was in the original, and he did a pretty good job with his lines; he didn’t sound like the usual child voice actor that either has too much emotion or not enough emotion, or is just plainly unintelligible.
The plot is straightforward: young courageous boy who saves animals is caught by illegal poacher, is kidnapped and calls for help, the Rescue Aid Society relays message to New York, the love-struck couple Bernard and Miss Bianca are sent to the outback to save him, they get there and save him and they live happily ever after. My one and only complaint about the story is one scene. One single scene that is never expanded upon or touched back on or resolved: The scene where the rangers tell Cody’s mother that he was eaten by alligators. The scene itself lasts only for a few seconds before a dissolve. What? Wait… what? Umm… she was just told her son died… don’t you think it would be a good idea to spend a little more time on that? They don’t even show her face! I guess since we know he’s still alive, it doesn’t really matter… no! It still matters! What if the grief of losing her only son was too much for her to bear and her heart gave out? I don’t care if we know that he’s still alive -- she doesn’t! That’s too important a thing to just gloss over so quickly. Why even show it? Why not just have the radio broadcast of what the rangers determined? That’s in there during the scene anyways! Why show it if they were never going to show Cody going back home? Why not show him hugging his mother and her crying out of joy that he was still alive?! Nope. They just ended with them flying away on the great eagle’s back, and then Wilbur says a few quips. I guess she’s OK,…? I guess it doesn’t really matter…?
With that one thing aside, this is a fantastic movie. Everything it does is so magnificent and large and just plain epic that it should be viewed at least once. Usually these Disney sequels are so poorly-constructed ‘movies’ that one actually made with this kind of care and passion is so refreshing and entertaining that I might just be praising this movie in a state of shock and awe, but regardless of my questionable state of mental health, this movie needs to be watched. Go out and watch it, tonight. You don’t even need to see the original. In fact don’t watch the original. Just watch this one. So what are you doing? Go watch it, watch it right now.
