By all accounts, the lion's share of Disney sequels sorely lack any semblance of the pure Disney magic that we all could come to expect from the films that preceded them. And it's easy to disseminate the root causes. They are not well storyboarded from the get-go, are completed outside of Disney Feature Animation's walls, and not surprisingly, are micromanaged into a cookie-cutter recipe from above by less-than-talented management.
And this has to do with "Rescuers Down Under"...how? It doesn't, and I love it. Disney's first attempt at an animated sequel was a magical brew of the same ingredients that made "Rescuers" endeared by so many, young and old. And what's more, the differences between the two have made "Down Under" down right better. This was Disney's first foray into the world of 3d animation, and the beauty of its use in the film is that it's utilized fairly sparingly, and I'm convinced that they knew the technology wasn't yet powerful enough to warrant use all on its own. The color schemes give me a sense of warmth, like I assume the land down under is nearly year-round. It's not nearly as dark and drab as its predecessor, so the sense of innocence so lost is felt on a deeper level than with Penny of the original.
"Down Under"'s opening 20 minute salvo could be categorized as its weaker point because of its lack of the main story's progression, but I beg to differ. Disney's cornerstone formula of a magical movie-going experience has always been storytelling, and it's most apparent in the first 20 minutes. This is when we truly know how deep the bonds run through the boy and the massive golden eagle not just because he initially rescues her from a poacher's trap, but when she rescues him from a perilous fall down a cliff she bumped him off from and flies him back to her nest, we know the connection is quite mutual. Now we know the depths that one is willing to go through to rescue the other.
The voice acting cannot go unnoticed, either. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor return, respectively, as Bernard and Miss Bianca and prove that thirteen years between the two Rescuers movies didn't diminish their abilities at all. Wilbur's performance by the late great John Candy make this it as memorable as any one of his live action movies. McLeach, the evil poacher, is given new depths of eeee-vilness by George C. Scott, who had definitely made his niche in the characterization in movies past. The glaring lack of an Australian accent aside, Adam Ryen's performance as Cody is right on par and was crucial to the ability to connect with the character.
Neither can the powerful performance by Glen Keane, animator extraordinaire of Marahute the golden eagle, go overlooked. From the first frame, it is very obvious that he is intimately familiar with the body of an eagle and all its workings, and on through to the last frame, I know that he had all the time and resources he needed to complete such an awesome effort.
But honestly, what kind of 8-year-old could have visualized the movie on this kind of level when it had barely come out fifteen years ago? Really, the only thing that mattered to me was that I felt a bond with the boy, a deep-down conviction that the trials he endures are happening to me in a different plane of being. And when the final credits have rolled, that is ultimately what makes or breaks such a movie, which definitely made it great.
"Rescuers Down Under" gets 9 of 10 stars
And this has to do with "Rescuers Down Under"...how? It doesn't, and I love it. Disney's first attempt at an animated sequel was a magical brew of the same ingredients that made "Rescuers" endeared by so many, young and old. And what's more, the differences between the two have made "Down Under" down right better. This was Disney's first foray into the world of 3d animation, and the beauty of its use in the film is that it's utilized fairly sparingly, and I'm convinced that they knew the technology wasn't yet powerful enough to warrant use all on its own. The color schemes give me a sense of warmth, like I assume the land down under is nearly year-round. It's not nearly as dark and drab as its predecessor, so the sense of innocence so lost is felt on a deeper level than with Penny of the original.
"Down Under"'s opening 20 minute salvo could be categorized as its weaker point because of its lack of the main story's progression, but I beg to differ. Disney's cornerstone formula of a magical movie-going experience has always been storytelling, and it's most apparent in the first 20 minutes. This is when we truly know how deep the bonds run through the boy and the massive golden eagle not just because he initially rescues her from a poacher's trap, but when she rescues him from a perilous fall down a cliff she bumped him off from and flies him back to her nest, we know the connection is quite mutual. Now we know the depths that one is willing to go through to rescue the other.
The voice acting cannot go unnoticed, either. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor return, respectively, as Bernard and Miss Bianca and prove that thirteen years between the two Rescuers movies didn't diminish their abilities at all. Wilbur's performance by the late great John Candy make this it as memorable as any one of his live action movies. McLeach, the evil poacher, is given new depths of eeee-vilness by George C. Scott, who had definitely made his niche in the characterization in movies past. The glaring lack of an Australian accent aside, Adam Ryen's performance as Cody is right on par and was crucial to the ability to connect with the character.
Neither can the powerful performance by Glen Keane, animator extraordinaire of Marahute the golden eagle, go overlooked. From the first frame, it is very obvious that he is intimately familiar with the body of an eagle and all its workings, and on through to the last frame, I know that he had all the time and resources he needed to complete such an awesome effort.
But honestly, what kind of 8-year-old could have visualized the movie on this kind of level when it had barely come out fifteen years ago? Really, the only thing that mattered to me was that I felt a bond with the boy, a deep-down conviction that the trials he endures are happening to me in a different plane of being. And when the final credits have rolled, that is ultimately what makes or breaks such a movie, which definitely made it great.
"Rescuers Down Under" gets 9 of 10 stars