29. The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

Though the Disney Renaissance kicked off with the beloved The Little Mermaid, people are often surprised to discover that its successor and the start of Disney’s most successful decade wasn’t Beauty and the Beast, or Aladdin or The Lion King, but the frequently forgotten The Rescuers Down Under. The only sequel in the Disney animated canon (Unless you count Fantasia 2000 and Winnie the Pooh), one can’t help but ask the very obvious question of “why The Rescuers?” Sure, it had some good ideas and was pretty successful at the time, but not nearly as much as some of Disney’s other hits and let’s be honest, The Rescuers is a pretty boring and, if not forgettable, then at least not especially memorable film; of all the Disney films, why does this get a sequel? Why did they break their unwritten rule for this? Whatever the reason, this is one of the rare times where a sequel was not only justified, but completely necessary – The Rescuers Down Under blows the original out of the water and while its relative obscurity is understandable, as it is kind of the black sheep of the Renaissance, it is still a good film that deserves to be remembered, if only for the service it did to The Rescuers Universe... and I can’t believe I just unfacetiously used the phrase “The Rescuers Universe”.

If there’s one aspect of The Rescuers Down Under that is on par with the rest of the Disney Renaissance, it’s the animation – honestly, in terms of pure quality, this is probably the best yet, perhaps it doesn’t quite have the artistry or imagination of Sleeping Beauty or Fantasia, but on a technical level, this is the nicest animation we’ve seen from Disney so far. Everything is so vibrant and clean, the movement so well controlled, the colours so bright, there are no real mistakes or awkward movements, it’s just great animation from start to finish. A couple of sequences, most notably the opening where Cody rides on the golden eagle, Marahute, are so breathtaking that they stand alongside some of the greatest animated sequences in Disney history. This is thanks to the Computer Animation Production System or “CAPS”, which allowed Disney animators to save a lot of time by computerising the ink and painting process of animation, without suffering from the sketchy, rough look created by the xerography process; the system works well and makes The Rescuers Down Under a very visually appealing film. There are some issues with computer animation and while some things such as McLeach’s vehicle look nice enough, some of the bigger environments don’t look quite as good – New York City ends up looking like a bad PS1 game, which can be a little distracting; this is just a minor quibble though. The character designs are also nice and have a lot more detail and personality to them than the ones from the original The Rescuers, it’s the same style, but perfected, with a lot more life and energy put into the characters’ movements and expressions. The backgrounds are good, if not great, like I said, some of the bigger ones rely a little too much on computer animation and there is not much detail to them, but the colours are very nice indeed; despite a few hiccups, The Rescuers Down Under is definitely a very good looking film.

‘I see you’ve played knifey checkers before.’

In terms of story and setting, The Rescuers was a film with a lot of potential and interesting ideas, but a flat and disappointing delivery; The Rescuers Down Under manages to take some of these ideas and use them a lot better, while fixing or removing some of the bigger problems from the original. While the Rescue Aid Society as a whole still isn’t as involved in the action as it should be, we do get a sense of the size and scope of the organisation as we see how they carry information and are spread across the world; it’s not much, but it’s a nice acknowledgement of the world the characters inhabit and a small insight into how their organisation works that was sorely lacking in the original film. The Rescuers Down Under does admittedly suffer from some of the same pacing issues as the original – there is a bit too much time spent on Bernard and Bianca’s preparation for their journey to Australia and, like in the original, they don’t reach their destination until about half way into the movie and don’t meet the child they are there to save until a whole hour in. However, there is not nearly as much tedious preparation prior to the journey in this film and to be fair, most of it is dedicated to legitimate development of Bernard and Bianca’s relationship and the introduction of the new character Wilbur; additionally, these scenes are much more entertaining than the equivalent scenes from the original, so ultimately, this is a bit of a moot point. 

However, where it is difficult to excuse the film is when, like the original, it drops into filler – there are two subplots that are completely inconsequential to the story and are there only to fill time in a movie that runs very short, at only seventy seven minutes. One involves Cody attempting to escape from imprisonment with a group of animal characters, which becomes entirely pointless because the second he escapes, McLeach just lets him go anyway. The other involves Wilbur being treated for back pain and then rushing off to save Bernard and Bianca, which also ends up being pointless, because he ends up just staying with the Marahute’s eggs and not contributing to the climax at all; this one is especially frustrating, as when Wilbur escapes from the hospital things are really set up for him to swoop in and save the day, or at least provide Bernard with transport so that he save the day, yet bizarrely, Bernard leaves the friendly albatross behind to do nothing and decides to use an antagonistic warthog as transport instead, it is very strange. While this is disappointing, the film is still much better paced than its predecessor; it is fast moving and always full of energy, with a lot of really good action scenes, almost the complete opposite of the slow, plodding original. Though the main story is too often sidelined for less interesting subplots, what we do get is a fun adventure with a surprisingly subtle and effective environmental message for a kid’s movie.

McLeach in full Rolf Harris mode

The cast suffers from a similar issue, it’s quite unusual that The Rescuers was the one movie Disney chose to do a direct sequel to, really, as they don’t seem to have much faith in Bernard and Bianca as main characters. Like in the first film, these two constantly take a back seat to the side characters, even more so here than in the original; even when Bernard and Bianca are in a scene, they are always just there to react to the other characters’ crazy antics, they are hardly given anything to do in this movie, especially Bianca who honestly does nothing at all except get rescued and say yes to Bernard’s marriage proposal – make of that what you will. Even Jake, who is initially one of the more prominent side characters, gets a lot less time the second he joins Bernard and Bianca and effectively becomes a main character, it just seems like the filmmakers were always more interested in what the other characters were doing. It’s kind of disappointing because, while I acknowledge that Bernard and Bianca aren’t exactly the most interesting protagonists, I do find them very likeable and enjoy their relationship and I certainly would prefer to spend time with them than the other characters, who, while not as boring as their counterparts from the first movie, can be just as obnoxious.

Orville the albatross is replaced in this film by his brother, Wilbur, who is much more involved in the story and stays a part of it even after the mice reach their destination; he’s certainly less annoying than Orville and has a degree of charm thanks to being voiced by John Candy, but I do think his role as the comic relief becomes a bit tiresome by the end, especially since this is only one film after The Little Mermaid and he is VERY similar to Scuttle from that. He is fun and energetic in his animation, but Wilbur is certainly not a likeable enough character to hold up an entire subplot. Jake is a better addition, being kind of like Crocodile Dundee as a mouse, he’s a cool and capable action hero while being enjoyably smug and confident, but without ever becoming too unlikeable; unfortunately, as said before, once he joins Bernard and Bianca proper he kind of falls out of the spotlight, so it’s kind of puzzling why he was ever introduced in the first place. Cody isn’t too bad, while the fact that an Australia kid has an American accent does kind of bother me (seriously how hard would it be to get an Australian kid? Or just have a kid do an Australian accent, it really isn’t hard) he’s a lot better than his counterpart from the original, Penny, being a lot less cutesy and whiny and actually pretty active and involved in his own rescue, though this does have the unfortunate side-effect of not really giving the mice much to do. 

Frank the lizard is undoubtedly The Hooter of the movie, he is screechy, annoying, stupid, clumsy and causes so much trouble for the other characters, who must constantly call him out for being so useless, he really is loathsome and one of the worst examples of this character type we’ve seen yet, though thankfully he doesn’t appear for very long. Krebbs the koala is very likeable, he’s cynical and sarcastic and not afraid to call Frank out for being a useless idiot; I was pretty fond of this guy, it’s a shame he’s not in it for very long. McLeach at times does come off as a bit of a typical anti-environmental villain, but he’s hardly a Captain Planet baddie because he has a legitimate motivation of making money that meets the effort he’s putting in, rather than destroying the environment or hurting animals just for the sake of it. George C. Scott also, as always, gives a great performance that helps give McLeach a great sense of personality and though his relationship with his pet lizard, Joanna, is a pretty stereotypical one – it’s basically the same as Madame Medusa and her two alligators, Brutus and Nero, from the first film – some of their slapstick bits are quite inspired and fun to watch. However, the great George C. Scott can’t save the fact that, while McLeach’s motivation is reasonable, it’s also kind of boring – classically, just wanting money doesn’t make for a very interesting villain and the rule is proved here, as compared to his Renaissance contemporaries, McLeach is a very forgettable villain; still, I don’t think he overstays his welcome, he’s certainly a lot better than Madame Medusa and isn’t nearly as derivative or cartoonish as he could’ve been, so no harm done.

‘See ya later, trash cans!’

The Rescuers Down Under is the second move in the Disney animated canon to not be a musical, after The Black Cauldron and thankfully so because the original The Rescuers was probably the worst example of Disney trying to shoehorn in songs where they didn’t belong. Though it is a shame to not have any songs after The Little Mermaid revitalised the idea of the Disney musical, they would be totally out of place in this action-packed adventure story and so are appropriately absent. Though the score is a bit of a generic adventure one, being a little too Indiana Jones-y, it’s still fun and suits the mood, a lot better than musical numbers would have.

At its most basic level, The Rescuers Down Under is kind of like The Rescuers done right: it takes the ideas of a secret organisation, a great adventure to save a child in danger and a journey that spans across the world and fulfils their potential properly, having a much stronger story, setting and pace than its predecessor. Unfortunately, it retains some of the original film’s problems as well, focusing far too much on less interesting side characters than it does on its likeable main duo and having too much padding for such a short film. However, it’s pretty difficult to deny that The Rescuers Down Under is a much better film than The Rescuers, as these issues don’t take away from the fantastic animation and great action scenes which far surpass anything the original had to offer. The Rescuers Down Under is still a bit of a strange choice for a sequel and it is one of the weaker films of the Disney Renaissance, but it is still a fun adventure that achieves the one thing it was supposed to – it’s better than The Rescuers. Much better.


Other Thoughts

• Jake’s face upon discovering Bernard and Bianca aren’t married

The man

6.5/10

Next Week: Beauty and the Beast!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds