Review of The Rescuers Down Under (1990) by Michael M — 05 Mar 2010

When any sequel comes out, the same question is asked: "how was it compared to the first one?" This question doesn't really work with The Rescuers Down Under, as it is an entirely different experience than the original film, The Rescuers, released 13 years earlier. Whereas the first film was a slow-paced melodrama with more than a few tearjerker scenes, Down Under is an epic action-adventure with colorful landscapes and beautiful imagery.

The film is a different experience from the moment it starts. Whereas The Rescuers took time to introduce it's kidnapped child and show how she got in her predicament, Down Under introduces its captive, Cody, immediately. It shows the viewer his character, personality, and exactly how he got to the point where he needed to be rescued. I'm not sure it's a good trade-off, as some of the mystery is lost. Cody loves animals and does his best to protect them, he accidentally ends up in a poachers trap, the poacher realizes Cody knows where a rare eagle is and kidnaps him so he'll tell him. It's straightforward, and quite frankly a little boring. Then there's the villain, McLeach, who just isn't that great of a villain, especially when compared to the superb Madame Medusa from the first film. The whole "evil poacher" concept isn't that interesting, and I also found his character to just be far too blatantly evil to the point that it wasn't believable anymore. Whereas Madame Medusa was sort of a passive aggressive type of evil, McLeach is obnoxiously obvious about his ill intentions, and the lengths he'll go to just to kill any endangered species (without spoiling anything, let's just say he goes farther than I for one was willing to believe to be realistic). He is still a pretty fun villain at times, with a wonderful sort of energy and great voice-work by George C. Scott, but he still doesn't rank anywhere near the same level as other great cartoon villains.

Moving on though, we are also reintroduced to the two heroes from the first film, Bernard and Bianca, who take the mission to rescue Cody. They are just as fun and loveable as they were in the first film. Nothing about their characters has been changed, but nothing needed to be changed. The two most significant additions to the non-human cast members are Jake the kangaroo rat, who serves as a romantic foil to Bernard as he vies for Biancas affection, and Wilbur the albatross brother of Orville from the first film. Wilbur, voiced by John Candy, is a spectacular addition to the cast proving to be a loveable form of comic relief. I liked Orville well enough in the first film, but Wilbur is just freakin' hilarious. It's odd to see the melodrama of The Rescuers replaced with the comical antics of a giant bird in Down Under, but it still works in its own way.

I've barely talked about the best part of Down Under, which is the adventure and beauty of it. The first film was filled with melodrama and a wonderful sort of ugliness, and it worked. Down Under is filled with adventure and beauty, and this works as well. The outback settings are nice to look at, the animation captures them perfectly, and the adventurous nature is at times awe-inspiring. The scenes involving flight atop of the colossal golden eagle Marahute deserve special mention for their ability to capture the glorious feeling of flight. These scenes aren't something you watch, they are something you experience. So is Down Under better than it's predecessor? No, but it's not any poorer either. Both films have their pros and cons, and serve to provide a different experience.