Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Sjoerd Jonker Sometimes franchises don't start with excellent first installments and The Rescuers is definitively one of them. In my opinion, The Rescuers is too straight forward in story telling. The plot is good, but they could have added so much more to make it a rich and spicy tale. For example: Bianca chose to go on a mission with a concierge instead with someone that was meant for the task and that is fine, but there were no further consequences after that. Bernard seems to have no struggle in doing such a complex job. In fact Bernard was rather really cut out in doing this, which surprised me. There is also no conservation afterwards like 'Hey, Bianca why did you choose me over all the potential companions that were cut out for this job.', which was really a shame. There was also a lack of romance between Bianca and Bernard(only a nice compliment here and there), until The Rescuers Down Under was released:Not only they have managed to add the necessarily romance it needed: Bernard is going to marry Bianca. They also add a lot more humor which I truly missed in the first film. Sure some of it was childish like the frilled lizard, but also humor that really works on the older audience, like Bernard's first attempt to ask Bianca to marry back in that restaurant and that little misunderstanding with Bianca afterwards. That is just clever writing. Some of the humor in this film was just simply hilarious, especially the egg stealing scene at the poacher's home and that is just the bit of spice the first installment really needed. Not only they add spice by humor, they even add a subplot: 'Safe the eagle', which was really a rich and emotional addition, with a valuable lesson about the importance of protecting a rare species. They also add a plenty of nice features like the R.A.S. relay(in the very beginning), a chandelier as a restaurant, Riding wild animals. All these things, makes the movie run dynamic and simply satisfying to watch. The sphere in the first movie however was darker, which was not too bad, since it suited with the rather slow story telling, which did a satisfying job in creating mystery. This kinda reminds me of Don Bluth's 'The Secret of NIMH' or 'All Dogs Go to Heaven'. Both films are awfully underrated and have far more darker and stylish content to show than The Rescuers. TRDU however looks a lot more alive and you can see that every minute is well organized. There was no need to add any songs in that film. Yes, The Rescuers Down Under is a sequel that contains NO songs. Do not get me wrong, I love songs, but they are often mediocre written and they are mostly just a filler for the movie. The sequels of 'The Land before Time' are the main offenders of this. Even though The Rescuers did not contain many songs, they were fillers.The ending was rather abrupt in TRDU, but it did not felt needed for a extended end, In fact I sometimes prefer this way, because it gives you an opportunity to decide for yourself in how they will life happily ever after. In conclusion: TRDU is the prime example of an excellent sequel, maybe even the best that I have ever witnessed. It is sad to see how such an amazing film did not very well at the box office.

Vimacone For some reason, The Rescuers Down Under is overlooked as one of the great Disney films from its renaissance period. I presume because its a sequel to an earlier film. This film has an entirely different tone and atmosphere than the original. This a pure adventure film in the rugged Australian outback and a very breathtaking adventure film at that. Lots of daring and thrilling camera shots and angles throughout; Most of them in the early sequence when Cody frees the eagle from a trap. It's been said that these scenes were inspired by Miyazaki's films such as Nausicaa and Castle in the Sky, which were out at the time of production.What's remarkable about the cast is that all the characters that appear in this film that appeared in the original are voiced by the same voice actors. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor reprise their roles as Bernard and Bianca respectively. Bernard Fox reprises the role of the Chairmouse, a minor character. Since Jim Jordan, who voiced Oroville, had passed away in 1988, a new albatross was created named Wilbur, brother to Oroville. John Candy was an excellent choice for Wilbur. Otherwise, all the other characters are new. George C. Scott gives the best performance as the villain Percival McCleach. He's a menacing but entertaining villain, surprisingly underrated. (I've been a big fan of Scott's rough gravely voice).Surprisingly, this was released on video before the original was. I remember seeing this one first. Most of us that were born around this time would remember this one well.The film still holds up strongly today and deserves a status as one of the great Disney classics.

Stompgal_87 This is one film I may have seen as a child but I didn't see it in full until a few months ago on my flight home from Dubai. I watched this immediately after the original to see if it was any better or worse. In fact, it's one of those sequels that's just as good as the original (Likewise with the first two 'Home Alone' films being as funny and entertaining as each other). I will also give this film some credit for technically being the first Disney sequel ever but unlike the 'Cinderella' and 'Aladdin' sequels, this one was theatrically released and is actually part of the Disney animated Classics canon. There are certain aspects of this film that surpassed the original such as its animation being fluid and rich in cel-shading and the majority of backgrounds being more colourful than those in the first film, despite the backgrounds from that film being very artistic. What also pleased me was that Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor reprised their roles as Bernard and Bianca, which is very rare when it comes to animated sequels. Cody was a decent and fun character, although I would have liked him better if he had an Australian accent (only about four characters in this film have this accent). McLeach was a terrifying villain who was just as menacing as Madame Medusa in the original and Wilbur was a funny addition to the cast of characters, especially when he danced to an upbeat song before Bernard and Bianca asked him to fly them to Australia and several mice tried to operate on him. Joanna was a comical sidekick of McLeach's and her character trait was reminiscent of that of Brutus and Nero. Other redeeming qualities of this film were some breathtaking animation sequences (such as the eagle flight scenes) and the brief running gag of Bernard trying to propose to Bianca but getting interrupted. If I had any other gripes of this film, Cody's mother was hardly ever seen and the ending was surprising and confusing because as the film progressed, I thought the ending would show Cody reuniting with his mother when, in fact, the eagle just flew him home and this was followed by Wilbur being stranded in the cliff, calling out for Bernard and Bianca and hatching the eggs. When I first saw this film in its entirety, I thought it was McLeach that was calling out to the heroic mice but after close inspection, he had actually fallen to his death down a waterfall, which took Disney villain deaths to a new level.Overall, this was a thrilling film that was every bit as entertaining as the original, despite its unexpected flaws. 8/10.

Katie P The Rescuers is one of my favorite Disney films of all time. It's subtle, beautiful, and sweet. So that's why it irks me that this movie even exists. But what irks me more is that this movie is so completely inept at even the basics of decent storytelling, which is saying a lot considering the company it came from. But what really gets me, well not furious but pretty mad, is that people actually think this is better than the original. But I'll get to that.The movie begins with Cody, a typical little boy living in the middle of absolutely nowhere who can talk to the animals with no real explanation as to how. We learn that he lost his father. And that's it, folks, the only character development we get from this character! We see him learn nothing or change in any way, he remains the same completely bland character throughout the whole movie. We're also given no explanation as to why he has an American accent when he clearly lives in the middle of the Australian Outback. Was he born in America and moved to Australia when his dad disappeared from existence with no explanation? Ah well, he gets trapped by a poacher and we're treated to 72 minutes of environmentalist agenda. But never mind that, we then get to see our main characters.And, unfortunately, they play a minor role in the movie, despite the fact they're in the title of the film. The running gag is that Bernard is trying to propose to Bianca, a pretty weak gag if you ask me. Then they go flying with what has to be the most annoying character the Disney animators of the Renaissance ever put on screen: Wilbur the albatross. And he never leaves. His subplot is never funny or necessary and it just made me very uncomfortable watching him get shot with a giant needle.And then Cody is trapped with a few characters who appear for, I guess, comic relief, but are left to rot down there because they're never shown again. Thus making that scene completely pointless. The other stupid thing in this movie is that, in the end, Bernard is standing on a weak branch holding a rope that is supporting Cody and keeping him from being washed away in a raging river. Now I know this is a cartoon but give me a break, a mouse couldn't possibly be that strong.The only thing this entire movie has is visuals. There's no denying that it's a beautiful movie. The scenery is breathtaking. But I still think it isn't as good as the first film, which was a bit more like a gorgeous watercolor painting. But I think that's more of a matter of taste because while I may prefer the subtly of the first film, you might prefer the more realistic and gorgeous Australian scenery this film offers and I think both are equally as good. But that's about all that's good about this movie.This movie looks like a good one on the surface but if you actually see it, it's clear there's nothing else to offer. Better than the original? I don't think so. This is one of the worst sequels to a REALLY good movie that I have ever seen. Skip this and watch The Rescuers. And if you're unimpressed by this, still watch The Rescuers to see how telling a story about two heroic mice is REALLY done.