MovieChat Forums > The Rescuers (1977) Discussion > Am I the only one who likes this better ...

Am I the only one who likes this better than 'Down Under'?

posted 13 years ago by CosmosX9
23 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong, "Rescuers Down Under" is a nice film, it's just...not that great. Okay, before you lash out at me, I'm going to elaborate why I don't think it's as good as the first movie.

First reason, is the distracted gag sequences. Some of you might think "Down Under" is a better film because it seemingly had more humor. Now, I don't mind having 'funny moments' in kids movies, but the problem with the 'funny moments' in "Down Under", is that they seem to drag far too long halfway through the movie (the cage sequence, with Cody & the animals, is a good example of this)! They don't really go anywhere with the plot, except for the 'egg stealing' sequence, in which McLeach thinks of a way to trick Cody into leading him to Marahute as Joanna steals his eggs (which I admit, was actually pretty funny). But the rest of the gags involving Joanna, Frank or Wilber are so boring and pointless, they just come off as cheesy filler!

Second reason, is the half-a$$ed character development. I feel like "Rescuers Down Under" is one of those movies that have a hard time remembering who it's main characters are! While I do enjoy the opening with Cody & Marahute, and liked seeing how Cody met McLeach, the movie just seems to focus more on those characters than Bernard & Bianca. However, when we do cut back to Bernard & Bianca there's more to Benard's character, yet less of Bianaca's. It's nice to see the changes Bernard goes through in order to get Bianca back, but as that's happening Bianca just gets reduced to a bland love intrest that needs to be saved by Jake or Bernard. If you think back to the first "Rescuers", Bianca was more of a badass and we saw her do a lot more, than just serving as a love intrest. She was more like Bernard's equal as well as his love intrest, "Down Under" just contradicts that term of equalism.

Speaking of sexism, this brings me to my third and final reason: THE KID! Now, many people like to jump to the conclusion that Cody is better than Penny, mainly because he's a 10-year old boy and she's a 7-year old girl! If you pay any attention to the first "Rescuers", you'll realize Penny is just as spunky and resourceful as Cody. I don't know if it's just me, or people have a serious problem with little girl characters. On a side-note, I believe Penny to be a more sympathetic character than Cody. She was a lonely orphan kidnapped by a pair of diamond smugglers, that wanted to use her to find a some valuable gem she doesn't know about, whereas Cody was just a trouble-maker that liked to skip school and run out on his mother to go on suicidal adventures! -_-

Apart from the bad crap I gave "Down Under", there's some things I like about it as well. The animation is quite good, the orchestrated music score is epic, the scenes between Cody and Marahute are very sweet, Jake is an awesome supporting character, and McLeach was kind of a better villain than Madame Medusa. Then again, I still think the first "Rescuers" is the better movie, and it's NOT 'overly cutesy' like everyone else says! I think that the first movie had a good amount of drama, humor, and character development. The only problem I really have with the first movie is the animation, but keep in mind this was made during the 'Disney Dark Age'. So of course it will look grainy and sketchy in some spots, all Disney movies from the 70's look like that!

That being said, my scores are:
Rescuers (1977)- 9/10
Rescuers Down Under- 7/10

"I kick arse for The Lord!" (Dead Alive)

[–] idonnowho 13 years ago

No, I wholeheartedly agree with you that THIS "Rescuers" film is MUCH better than the second one. It has great songs ("Down Under" didn't have any), Penny is a very nice, sympathetic, not to mention rather pretty-looking little girl character. She is FAR from annoying or upsetting (unlike, I dunno...Anne-Marie in "All Dogs Go to Heaven"!!!), and the scenes with her and Rufus are simply lovely.

That's pretty much all I can think of saying right now, though "Rescuers Down Under" isn't a terrible film, I agree, just a surprisingly overrated one! (P.S. Was it really true that Cody was "playing hooky" throughout the movie? )

[–] CosmosX9 13 years ago

Was it really true that Cody was "playing hooky" throughout the movie?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know, they never say, but it looked that way to me. :L

"I kick arse for The Lord!" (Dead Alive)

[–] Taran_Wanderer_2 13 years ago

Popular opinion and professional critics favor the 1977 film over its sequel. Most of the pro-sequel arguments are nostalgia-based, not really based on the film´s own merits. I find the sequel to be very poorly executed and written and in no way comparable to its predecessor.

http://www.petitiononline.com/drescuer/petition.html Sign petition, save The Rescuers!

[–] kill-the-boxtrolls 13 years ago

I saw that review, WHY DON'T YOU THINK CODY IS SWEET? JUST AS 'CUTESY' AS PENNY, GET OUT OF HERE!

Anyone want a donut?

[–] Taran_Wanderer_2 13 years ago

Cody is blegh. He´s got no personality nor character, he behaves like a typical Disney princess character.

http://www.petitiononline.com/drescuer/petition.html Sign petition, save The Rescuers!

[–] roze_86 12 years ago

No you're not, I prefered this one too! I still remember being angry when the 2nd one came out and you could only buy merchandise in relation to the 2nd movie, by the time I'd moved to England, there was hardly anything with the original movie (except books and VHS) and I always felt like the the 2nd movie was maybe promoted too much? I didn't want to watch the 2nd one as a kid, but i watched it in my teens and didnt think it was so bad, but I still prefer the first 1. I think I also found Penny cuter than Cody and Medusa and Snoops funnier villains than Mcleach :D

[–] kill-the-boxtrolls 13 years ago

I thought Penny was 12? I didn't think she was seven, but I've seen Down Under and yeah, I don't really care much for it.

I agree she's spunky and resourceful but I don't remember her being even more sympathetic than Cody SHE'S MORE OF A FREE SPIRIT NOT CUTESY! People think that she's ANNOYING they do not hate kids!

Oh, and thus, get out of here.

Anyone want a donut?

[–] velcronewsletter 12 years ago

apart from mcleech being a scarier more dangerous villain than medusa, i still think the original film was the best

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 12 years ago

As much as I love Down under, I prefer this one.

[–] mistershankly 11 years ago

I would rank both as pretty equal, however I agree that Bianca was a much stronger character in the first movie. It`s just silly that they`re making Bianca being completely oblivious to Jake`s advances toward her. I believe most women can tell when men are interested in them, so it doesn`t make sense that Bianca has no idea.

And she should be able to discern what is on Bernard`s mind when he gets on one knee and says "Would you, will you", and then gets interrupted.

Bianca has shown signs of being interested in Bernard all along, so when she lets Jake make advances toward her, it looks like she`s trying to torture Bernard a little. If she had been given a strong personality like in the first, I doubt she`d let that happen. It`s true that she seems bland and shallow when she does nothing about it.

[–] ExplorerDS6789 11 years ago

I think most people born in the '80s and '90s would lean more towards Rescuers Down Under, because it was the newest one, the kids were all taken to see it, and they probably didn't even know there was an original Rescuers. In my case, I knew about Rescuers Down Under growing up, I saw the preview enough times. I didn't go see the movie as it didn't look all that interesting. It wasn't until about 1997 that I heard about the original. I didn't even know Rescuers Down Under was a sequel until then. How do ya like that?

As far as animation, cinematography and overall looks... and John Candy's performance as Wilbur, Rescuers Down Under is the superior film. BUT... Big BUT here, in terms of story, characters, SONGS, MUSIC, plot, staging, and character designs, the ORIGINAL Rescuers is by and large the BEST film.
Rescuers Down Under is really just eye candy. It LOOKS really good. But alas, its characters were bland and uninteresting (except Wilbur). If you like pretty colors, then this is the film for you. But if story, character and songs that generate emotion are your forte, then go with the original.

[–] Taran_Wanderer_2 11 years ago

the kids were all taken to see it, and they probably didn't even know there was an original Rescuers.

Well, The Rescuers was re-released in theaters in 1989 for a third successful theatrical run, so I'm sure most people were not oblivious to it even if it had yet to hit the video store shelves.

As far as animation, cinematography and overall looks... and John Candy's performance as Wilbur, Rescuers Down Under is the superior film.

Not necessarily. The sequel has a sharper overall look, but the animation isn't necessarily better. Let's remember that the original film was mostly animated by masters of their trade, whereas The Rescuers Down Under was animated by a fresh batch of new-comers. Sure, computer-aided animation smoothed things out, but the essential part of the animation is not spectacular.

http://www.petitiononline.com/drescuer/petition.html Sign petition, save The Rescuers!

[–] ExplorerDS6789 11 years ago

Well, The Rescuers was re-released in theaters in 1989 for a third successful theatrical run, so I'm sure most people were not oblivious to it even if it had yet to hit the video store shelves.

The first movie I ever saw in theaters was Home Alone back in 1990, and then all the Disney movies I saw were the current ones, with the exceptions of the re-releases of 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, Oliver and Company, and The Little Mermaid. In other words, I didn't see The Rescuers Down Under, and thanks to some little jerk who thought inserting a photo of a naked chick in ONE frame would be hilarious, The Rescuers seems to have received a bad reputation and its releases are met with very little fanfare. I'd still like to know who had so much time on their hands that they decided to look for it.

Let's remember that the original film was mostly animated by masters of their trade

THE masters of the trade.

Sure, computer-aided animation smoothed things out, but the essential part of the animation is not spectacular.

Right, no amount of good animation can make up for a mediocre story and characters.

[–] pioneergrrrl 10 years ago

Down Under was HORRIBLE!! There is no reason to tamper with a classic.

[–] Taran_Wanderer_2 10 years ago

I like how Disney excludes The Rescuers Down Under from their "Classics" list on Disney Movies Anywhere; good, whenever I stop to think about it I can come up with new reasons to dislike that film as much as one could dislike any other low-budget Disney sequel.

Of course, Oliver & Company is included at the expense of Pete's Dragon (the earlier two live-action animation features are included), but we can't have it all, can we?

http://www.petitiononline.com/drescuer/petition.html Sign petition, save The Rescuers!

[–] idonnowho 9 years ago

Why does it matter to you what Disney thinks about Rescuers DU or any other animated features of theirs being "classic" or not? Isn't one's own opinion on that kind of thing most important?

PS I agree w everyone else here that this rescuers is much more memorable than its disappointing sequel... 

[–] Taran_Wanderer_2 9 years ago

Isn't one's own opinion on that kind of thing most important?

I wouldn't care what Disney's assessment of each of their films were if they were all treated with equal dignity; however, since we all know that how Disney as a whole regards their films influences over how they treat them, then yes, I care.

http://www.petitiononline.com/drescuer/petition.html Sign petition, save The Rescuers!

[–] travisgerow 9 years ago

I kinda like the first better but I enjoy both films. The animation of the first didn't bother me at all. If anything it gave me that nice nostalgic feel.

[–] idonnowho 9 years ago

While TW2 DOES have a point about Disney and what they consider classics. Truth be told I just went on the Disney Movies Anywhere site and was DELIGHTED to see or rather NOT see ANYTHING Winnie the Pooh-related in that section. Or "Frozen" for that matter... But then again, the list seems to chronological end after 1999, so...

[–] pioneergrrrl (2412) 6 years ago

The rescuers is an AWESOME movie. Down under should be flushed.

[–] PrincessTutu (76) 4 years ago

Ancient topic, but add me to the list of those who think the original is far superior. Down Under is kind of a disjointed mess with too many wasted nonsense scenes. The original had a charm and dignity that the sequel just wasn't able to match.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 4 years ago

I loved Down Under, but I didn't think anyone actually felt like the sequel was better than the first film.

Maybe this is like TMNT, where it's easy to just think Secret of the Ooze is better at a glance cause it's funnier and more exciting, but the original is just leagues ahead, a better movie.

I also didn't think anything of the alleged animation issues in Rescuers. I mean, growing up, I just dismissed it as being older, but I still thought it was an incredible film.