GameNow WP Theme

Dark Light
The Rescuers Down Under

Hold on tight for a thrilling, fast-paced adventure unlike any other with THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER! The world’s bravest mice, Bernard and Miss Bianca, answer a call for help from deep in the heart of Australia’s vast and unpredictable Outback! With a crazy crew of local critters, these top mouse agents rush to the aid of Cody, a young boy struggling to save a magnificent eagle from a ruthless poacher. But with restless natives and unexpected dangers popping up at every turn, who knows if they’ll come to the rescue in time! Say “G’Day” to a classic Disney adventure full of unforgettable characters and incredible animation in this down-under delight you’ll cherish for years to come!No, this isn’t a quickie, direct-to-video sequel, cashing in on the success of the 1977 animated hit about adventurous mice, but a full-blown theatrical effort. This time around, Bernard (voiced by Bob Newhart) is trying to pop the question to Bianca (Eva Gabor) when they’re summoned to Australia, where a young boy has been kidnapped by a pallid, gray-faced poacher (who looks like and is voiced by George C. Scott). Wilbur, a chatterbox of an albatross (John Candy, replacing the late Jim Jordan’s character Orville), and Jake (Tristan Rogers), a kangaroo mouse–Bernard is jealous of the dashing rodent–assist the Rescuers in saving the day and imparting a mild environmental message. The film opens with an absolutely breathtaking aerial sequence–this was made near the beginning of Disney’s animation renaissance–so impressive it would seem the story, literally, has nowhere else to go but down, but some smart gags, excellent animation, and rollicking adventures ensue. So why isn’t it better known? It had the bad luck to open, in 1990, opposite another kids’ film–Home Alone. –David Kronke

Buy “The Rescuers Down Under “ For Only $10.45

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
5 Comments
  • Elizabeth J. Carmean
    March 23, 2008
    #1
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

    What a shock it was for me to find this video at Babies R Us for 14.99.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • FredeRicko
    March 23, 2008
    #2
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

    Originally meant as a direct-to-video release, this sequel to The Rescuers (1977) barely has anything more to give than sharp, standard animation when compared to other sequel releases like Atlantis II – Milo’s Return (Probably the worst sequel ever, since the original hadn’t much to give either) but other than this The Rescuers 2 is nothing than yet another attempt (First attempt) to cash into the success of the original, which was one of the most successful Disney films in time of original release.

    Story-wise, this movie left me flat, after putting two and two together I realized that it was nothing more than a rehash of the original. Imagine, two mice from the Rescue Aid Society fly on albatross to a faraway land to rescue a child who’s been kidnapped and has sent a plea for help. It seems that the villain and his minions need the little boy to help him retrieve a valuable treasure. As you can see, the storyline is anything but original, that’s why I was shocked when I read that the makers of this had thought the original had a weak story, but compared to this one, it had way more lust and charm.

    The movie has too much of a modern setting to be memorable and the characters are uninteresting, especially the two main characters Bernard and Miss Bianca, who not only look old and awful but are boring and minor characters. The boy they are rescuing is rather bland and has almost no personality. Characters like the caged animals are only added for a longer running time (And don’t even get rescued in the end!), happenings are sometimes ridiculously exagerated and the ending feels rushed and incomplete.

    The original The Rescuers was a hands-down favorite, so I decided to give its sequel a chance, however for reasons I’ve stated above, I disliked it and don’t feel like recommending it. Watch the original or other early Disney animated classic instead. 1/5.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    March 23, 2008
    #3
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

    What rubbish.

    Way too much violence. Why do kids movies have to be so violent these days? (or when it was made).

    Had a few laughs (I’m an ex-pat Australian) but not worth the plastic it was made from.

    Certainly not recommended for general viewing as the cover shows.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    March 23, 2008
    #4
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

    After having loved Disney’s first adaptation of Margery Sharp’s The Rescuers series, The Rescuers from 1977, I decided to give a try to one of their many unnecessary, badly done sequels. Well, I wasn’t disappointed because I wasn’t expecting nothing more than pure garbage and that is what I got.

    The makers of this film obviously watched the first movie, since the whole plot manages to completely rip-off the original’s touching dramatic plot and somehow turn it into tasteless, bland, cheap comedy at the same time not managing to capture a single element from Margery Sharp’s books, which the first film had done so beautifully.

    Not only that, but the story is unrealistic and uninteresting, too many corners are cut and it bugs me that it doesn’t even bother to keep on the same style as the first film (Which was attempted in 101 Dalmatians II – Patch’s London Adventure), the ending leaves lose-ends all over the place, a couple of caged animals are left there to rot despite helping the boring “hero” boy and saving his life, but either way, these lose ends don’t even bother me because I cared so little about the story and characters here that what happens to them in the end matters to me not. The thing that bothered me the most was how the film had Bernard and Miss Bianca engaged in the end, I was like WHAT?! That’s a bucket of cold water and a knife stabbed onto Margery Sharp’s heart! She never would have allowed that to happen in her stories. Absolutely sickening.

    There’s many other flaws with the film besides the boring, copied story, the tasteless comedy and the empty characters, but the bottom line is, stick to Margery Sharp’s books and Disney’s 1977 film, avoid this at all costs.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • LITTLE RICH KID
    March 23, 2008
    #5
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

    i would have loved that. The movie is stupid, its boring. plus there were too many dirty jokes :(

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Leave a Reply:




Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes