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, and more befitting of an hour long television special than a feature film. 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. The difference is that "The Rescuers" actually had a sense of significance, at least in its own line, because it was the first mission for the two main mice. With the exception of Bernard's plans to propose (which deserved much more focus), this story feels more like an ordinary chapter in these guys' lives. The flow is also problematic, as the choppy middle act 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.
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.
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, and more befitting of an hour long television special than a feature film. 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. The difference is that "The Rescuers" actually had a sense of significance, at least in its own line, because it was the first mission for the two main mice. With the exception of Bernard's plans to propose (which deserved much more focus), this story feels more like an ordinary chapter in these guys' lives. The flow is also problematic, as the choppy middle act 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.
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.