The biggest disappointment I have when hearing about The Rescuers Down Under is just how much of an improvement it supposedly is to the first movie, The Rescuers from 1977. I just cannot comprehend this idea. The Rescuers was an exceptionally well-made movie, with a strong plot and an unforgettable visual style. Out of the Disney movies that aren't heavyweight classics, it's one of the studio's very best. The Rescuers Down Under is often gorgeous to look at. But it's not by any means half the movie the original was.
The good stuff in Down Under is obvious. The three dimensional landscapes, the effect shots, the good voice cast and the wonderful music all create a movie that LOOKS and SOUNDS just absolutely great. It's a spectacle to watch the many sequences taking place in the air, the eagle flight in the opening and that mindblowing descent into a blizzardy New York City from the albatross. It takes your breath away every time. It is the very anti-thesis to the first movie, which was mellow and low-key, which used an almost eerie silence during a lot of dramatic events and had very few action scenes at all. As an adventure movie, Down Under is often a treat.
But there are many things with the movie that bothers me a lot. The first film was dark and atmospheric, even poetic at times. I know it's going to sound strange but I find the movie is too "kid friendly". It's not that a Disney movie shouldn't welcome it's target audience, it's just that I get the feeling the movie is really taking the kids for granted, rather than working in their service. There is something so redundant and automatic with the plot of this movie. A generic boy with no greater character traits (other than being a morally correct role model) is captured by a big evil poacher McLeach, wonderfully voiced by George C. Scott, driving around in an elaborately huge war-machine and living in a big, evil looking, home-made hunting lair (we learn he is wanted.... you'd think he'd be more discreet!). To the rescue are Bernard and Bianca, who are introduced with a slapstick scene where Bernard tries to get back the wedding ring he tries to present to Bianca. The thing about The international Rescue Aid Society, which served as a big and great introduction scene in the first movie, is over within less than a minute. In a movie 74 minutes long, couldn't we at least get that catchy rescue song? But were not wasting time in the 90's, we hurry off to Australia where we get a great character in Jake, the Australian kangaroo, but he gets almost nothing to do in the movie (though he surely serves as a good toy for McDonald's). Meanwhile, the kid in McLeach's lair also meet some new characters as it turns out that McLeach holds several animals captive in his basement. We get a few lines from a grumpy koala, and a few from a very well mannered kangaroo, but most of the attention goes to an obnoxious lizard that I don't recall at all from my childhood. It's one of those obligatory comic relief characters that they think will amuse the kids, and I don't know, maybe they do. But I still think it's annoying to give so much screen time to a stupid and annoying lizard when they could have made something memorable, with proper character. The swamp folks in the original Rescuers were more like adults (albeit drinking rednecks, but who's perfect right?) and if memorable comic reliefs is your bag, the silent firefly Evinrude was unforgettable. The most memorable sidekick in this movie is Joanna, the dumb iguana of McLeach's. She is most fittingly a follower to the eels in The Little Mermaid and a precursor to the hyenas in The Lion King and she is both funny, well drawn and have a strong character (unlike many of the other characters in this movie). McLeach is also a good, if a little standard, villain.
The movie wraps itself up pretty quickly and the plot is lazy, automatic and doesn't even believe in itself - we MUST have, I suppose, a comic relief sidestory involving John Candy's albatross. It does not serve the story of the movie at all, but I suspect the film makers didn't have any ideas, so they just threw in these hysterical scenes to make a couple of minutes pass. What made the first movie so good, besides that it too was gorgeous to watch, was that it had a plot that held up. One girl trapped in a scary swamp. Two detective mice getting closer to actually finding her within an actual investigation (in Down Under that's not even a problem, as said they don't waste time). One flight to Devil's Bay, one team-up with the girl, one scheme, one evil lady and two crocodiles, some swamp people, scary pivotal scene in a cave, finale with fireworks, all ends well. It's a great movie! In Down Under the mice act just so that the movie can continue until it ends, meanwhile giving us great stuff to look at, some comic relief and some tension that is generic and un-original. Get this: The movie doesn't even have the interest to show a reunion between the boy and his mother! This despite the fact that we learn his dad has died and that the police take the boy for dead too. Down Under tells its story sloppy and automatic.
Even so, it's an entertaining film, mostly due to it's great looks. But it does feel calculated and soulless in comparison to The Rescuers, which was a genuine, original and actually pretty bold animated movie that didn't take kids for granted and made a movie that anyone can enjoy to fullest degree. I don't think Down Under has that power, and I don't think it is half the movie the original was.
The good stuff in Down Under is obvious. The three dimensional landscapes, the effect shots, the good voice cast and the wonderful music all create a movie that LOOKS and SOUNDS just absolutely great. It's a spectacle to watch the many sequences taking place in the air, the eagle flight in the opening and that mindblowing descent into a blizzardy New York City from the albatross. It takes your breath away every time. It is the very anti-thesis to the first movie, which was mellow and low-key, which used an almost eerie silence during a lot of dramatic events and had very few action scenes at all. As an adventure movie, Down Under is often a treat.
But there are many things with the movie that bothers me a lot. The first film was dark and atmospheric, even poetic at times. I know it's going to sound strange but I find the movie is too "kid friendly". It's not that a Disney movie shouldn't welcome it's target audience, it's just that I get the feeling the movie is really taking the kids for granted, rather than working in their service. There is something so redundant and automatic with the plot of this movie. A generic boy with no greater character traits (other than being a morally correct role model) is captured by a big evil poacher McLeach, wonderfully voiced by George C. Scott, driving around in an elaborately huge war-machine and living in a big, evil looking, home-made hunting lair (we learn he is wanted.... you'd think he'd be more discreet!). To the rescue are Bernard and Bianca, who are introduced with a slapstick scene where Bernard tries to get back the wedding ring he tries to present to Bianca. The thing about The international Rescue Aid Society, which served as a big and great introduction scene in the first movie, is over within less than a minute. In a movie 74 minutes long, couldn't we at least get that catchy rescue song? But were not wasting time in the 90's, we hurry off to Australia where we get a great character in Jake, the Australian kangaroo, but he gets almost nothing to do in the movie (though he surely serves as a good toy for McDonald's). Meanwhile, the kid in McLeach's lair also meet some new characters as it turns out that McLeach holds several animals captive in his basement. We get a few lines from a grumpy koala, and a few from a very well mannered kangaroo, but most of the attention goes to an obnoxious lizard that I don't recall at all from my childhood. It's one of those obligatory comic relief characters that they think will amuse the kids, and I don't know, maybe they do. But I still think it's annoying to give so much screen time to a stupid and annoying lizard when they could have made something memorable, with proper character. The swamp folks in the original Rescuers were more like adults (albeit drinking rednecks, but who's perfect right?) and if memorable comic reliefs is your bag, the silent firefly Evinrude was unforgettable. The most memorable sidekick in this movie is Joanna, the dumb iguana of McLeach's. She is most fittingly a follower to the eels in The Little Mermaid and a precursor to the hyenas in The Lion King and she is both funny, well drawn and have a strong character (unlike many of the other characters in this movie). McLeach is also a good, if a little standard, villain.
The movie wraps itself up pretty quickly and the plot is lazy, automatic and doesn't even believe in itself - we MUST have, I suppose, a comic relief sidestory involving John Candy's albatross. It does not serve the story of the movie at all, but I suspect the film makers didn't have any ideas, so they just threw in these hysterical scenes to make a couple of minutes pass. What made the first movie so good, besides that it too was gorgeous to watch, was that it had a plot that held up. One girl trapped in a scary swamp. Two detective mice getting closer to actually finding her within an actual investigation (in Down Under that's not even a problem, as said they don't waste time). One flight to Devil's Bay, one team-up with the girl, one scheme, one evil lady and two crocodiles, some swamp people, scary pivotal scene in a cave, finale with fireworks, all ends well. It's a great movie! In Down Under the mice act just so that the movie can continue until it ends, meanwhile giving us great stuff to look at, some comic relief and some tension that is generic and un-original. Get this: The movie doesn't even have the interest to show a reunion between the boy and his mother! This despite the fact that we learn his dad has died and that the police take the boy for dead too. Down Under tells its story sloppy and automatic.
Even so, it's an entertaining film, mostly due to it's great looks. But it does feel calculated and soulless in comparison to The Rescuers, which was a genuine, original and actually pretty bold animated movie that didn't take kids for granted and made a movie that anyone can enjoy to fullest degree. I don't think Down Under has that power, and I don't think it is half the movie the original was.