Jesper Brun This is a beautiful movie. That's it. And what's more astounding is the fact that it is a Disney sequel. Why couldn't the most famous and revolutionary animation company make more like this instead of those crappy direct-to-video sequels they are so infamous for? Enough complaining. Why is this movie so good? It was their first movie which was fully digitally painted and also used some early CG-animation for some background work which do not always blend very well, but you can't blame Disney for that. But the animation is fantastic! The flight scenes with Cody and the golden eagle amazing and add so much granduer to the Australian outback. And when the real mission begins, it is a full-blown action-adventure movie with tons of great action scenes.The new characters are a lot of fun, especially the new albatross, Wilbur, voiced by the always funny John Candy. He has several scenes in which he made me laugh hard! The villain, Percival McLeach, is just a criminally underrated Disney villain. He is voiced by the great George C. Scott, who truly understands making him intense and menacing, but also very funny. His pet, Joanna, is also a good and funny sidekick.Some of the Australian characters, who are only in it for a short time, can seem a little pointless, but Jake makes jimself usefull as a great guide and a rival to Bernard who uses the entire movie building up the courage to propose to Miss Bianca. The three of them have great interactions and act bravely in this intense action/adventure.The movie is criminally underrated and deserves more attention. It is a great family action flick which will keep you on the edge of your seat.

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.)

n-mo TV Guide said of this movie, "Three years in the making, it was obviously conceived during the height of this country's fascination with Australia, brought on by Paul Hogan's fabulously successful Crocodile Dundee. By 1990, the mania had long since subsided, and... the film doesn't make particularly imaginative use of the location. Take away the accents and the obligatory kangaroos and koalas, and the story could have taken place anywhere." That's about it: lack of imagination. The formulaic repeats and nods to the original film aren't too cleverly woven into the new context and setting, and the resulting product is rather jumbled and, unless you are a young child, unsatisfying.The (few) attempts at more sophisticated gags to appeal to a cross-generational audience don't fit well in with the story or the rest of the movie, while they were pretty much seamless in the original. The writing is overall rather sloppy and it doesn't seem much thought was given to conceivability (the reviewer who pointed out the stupidity of Jake wanting to "find a way to extend the runway!" and then immediately making use of a device clearly placed to do just that was spot-on). Granted, a story involving anthropomorphic animals is not going to attempt verisimilitude, but surely it is not too much to ask that a fantastical universe, within its own world, obey certain rules of logical coherence.There's something else: the snow take-off. This had already been done in the first movie, and with quite effective animation and beautiful drawing (with the "camp" elements such as the albatross's snow boots extremely well-placed). The only reason to re-do it here was to capitalize on the techniques that had by 1990 evolved to allow "sleeker" and "smoother," more metallic, flowing visuals and movement as was the aesthetic vogue at the time. Watching it in 2015, it is now apparent the animators made a huge mistake, and banked the differential of the new visuals largely on their technical acuity. Graphical rendering and automated animation have of course advanced considerably since that time, and consequently the updated scene has aged extremely poorly. (Also, without giving away too much, may I just say that the kind of mishap this incident leads to - and treats so cursorily and incidentally - is not funny to adults, and children should not be conditioned to think it is funny, either?)But maybe that was to be expected for a film so obviously conceived, from the start, as a consumer product catering to the fads of its time. Like all such films, this one was doomed to become a prisoner of its time. This has become abundantly clearer as the years have rolled by, and as such, it cannot be classed with the best, "timeless" Disney classics.

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.