VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

datautisticgamer-74853 This film was relatively unpopular due to being released between The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, but like the Nostalgia Critic says, it is one of Disney's most under-appreciated and underrated films. The Rescuers Down Under is a substantial improvement over The Rescuers (at least in my opinion) due to having more engaging action (the flight scenes are just magnificent), better characters (I found the new characters and their development to be more intriguing), and funnier comedy. I didn't really care for Madame Medusa, Brutus, and Nero, but I could say the opposite for Percival McLeach and Joanna. They were more dark and threatening than Medusa and the crocodiles, and had a better way to be removed from the story (I am not a fan of ambiguity, though I don't know if that would add to The Rescuers' score, subtract from Down Under's score, or both). The best part is that this sequel was made before Disney Sequels were even established as the company's toilet, and the sad thing is that just because it's a sequel, people are looking over it in favor of other Renaissance films. (Keep in mind that this was released 4 years before The Return of Jafar, the first thing considered a Disney Sequel.)

Donald F Whenever or not you're going to love or hate this movie depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for character, relationships, and development, then The Rescuers II blows. Everything is simple, nobody develops, and most of the characters are played for laughs. You won't find anything to take away here.But if you want a well-paced, impressive adventure, Rescuers is pretty good. You don't need to stay for 5 minutes to see wonderful animation used on exciting, creative scenes. There's a lot stuff in this relatively short movie, and it doesn't feel excessive. The backgrounds of the Australian outback are nice, and the 3D animation is incorporated well when needed. The good guys are charming, the evil villain is intimidating, and we have a giant bird! If you're in the mood for that kind of nostalgic fun, then its a great treat.

andreaseklund this sequel is a recipe for a disaster when you think about it: sequel to a movie that was a bit forgettable, characters are not as memorable as in other Disney movies. out of all 30 Disney sequels, this is the only tolerable one (excluding pixar movies). animation: top notch, i don't think i have ever seen anything smoother. plot: simple yet sufficient. characters: they added a crocodile Dundee like guy (who is the only one with the correct accent). they replaced the slightly annoying girl with a stronger boy, that makes a difference as you can see he can take care of himself(ish). the villain is very threatening and a bit realistic and not completely over the top as in the prequel. the plot is similar in the way that the villain needs something from the child, but i found that the second was better as there the villain needs the location of a bird that the child is fondly attached to, which gives a more threatening climax, as at the same time, the viewers don't know the limits of the two characters, and how far they will go to achieve. in the prequel, the girl has to get a diamond and then she is basically free, (as one would notice near the end of the movie). in the sequel, lets say it gets quite a bit more intense.the main reason people don't like it is because it isn't true to the original. to be honest, i found the original a bit slow paced and in some areas it literally lacked some animation mainly in that flying scene. found the plot in the original weaker in some ways, and has a few unnecessary details. i found the little girl with her teddy very irritating with all those cutesy moments. i did find the two songs relaxing but again, very forgettable.in conclusion, the sequel is superior to the original in many ways. This movie might be too intense for children under 5. if they haven't seen it, then this is a must.this movie would be interesting to see in 3d, as it would have quite a few moments when some depth could be interesting.

Michael_Elliott The Rescuers Down Under (1990) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Sequel to the 1977 film has an Australian boy being kidnapped by a poacher because he learns that the kid knows the location of a golden eagle and its eggs. Soon the Rescue Aid Society are informed and both Bernard and Bianca are on their way. THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER was considered a major flop when it was first released and I must admit that it's somewhat shocking that Disney would select THE RESCUERS as a film to make a sequel to. Not that the original film is bad but there's certainly many better known titles out there that they could have done a sequel to and I'm sure they would have gone over better with crowds. Either way, this film isn't nearly as good as the original and I think this is mainly due to the story here not being all that good. We've got the same concept of what we saw in the original but the biggest change is that we're now in Australian, which I'm sure was in response to CROCODILE DUNDEE being such a hit. There are a few things that really work here including an amazing opening sequence where the boy ends up on the back of the eagle and goes for an incredibly fun journey through the clouds. If the rest of the film had more scenes like this one then it would have been much better. I also thought that the animation was great but then again you expect this from Disney. Both Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor are good reprising their roles and we get John Candy and George C. Scott doing fine work as well. THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER is far from a bad movie but it never quite reaches the level of the first film, which wasn't a classic either.