mklubeck4 Yeah, I know the Nostalgia Critic already said something similar, but, I couldn't agree with him more. The animation is BEYOND beautiful, the actors and voice acting is great, I can't believe people remember the underwhelming prequel more than this piece of art. I mean, okay, the story's nothing special, a kid rescues a bird from a poacher's trap, the poacher gets onto the kid, he holds him hostage until he spills out where she is, and the rescuers have to save him. Okay, fine, I won't disagree with you. The plot is an overall average. But aside from that, the suspenseful sequences and action scenes REALLY make the plot stand out more. It's sequences and animation and just everything that pops up on the screen is really the icing of the cake here. The prequel, on the other hand, has none of that. It's animation was average, the action sequences weren't that exciting, the score from that movie also didn't help at all. In fact, that's another really great thing about this movie: Bruce Broughton's score. It's epic, it's adventurous, it's like the John Williams' Superman score of Disney movies. The score from the first movie never really stood out that much, and you never really noticed it was there, and, I know I'll probably get a lot of hate mail for this, but, thank GOD there were no songs in Bruce's score. Yeah, no offense, but, I've never really been that big on Disney songs. Again, that's just me, and if you like them, go ahead and continue to enjoy them. So, in conclusion, it's much better than the first movie, and if you didn't like the first movie that much, then watch this one to make up for it. You'll be a BILLION times satisfied watching this movie.

Bonnie O'Connor Most of the animated Disney sequels stink: Fox and the Hound 2, Hunchback of Notre Dame 2, Return to Neverland, Return to the Sea, and so on. So far this is the only animated Disney sequel that is a combo of thrilling and awesome, and has a decent story!I grew up watching this movie and didn't realize at first that this was a sequel to another movie. When I finally did see the first movie I liked it, but rescuing a girl from a diamond mine and riding a swamp mobile didn't feel as exciting as riding on a giant eagle, being kidnapped and threatened by a poacher with a giant lizard, getting chased a lot, exploring the outback, and almost being fed to crocodiles! Not to say that the previous adventure was dull, it wasn't - it was very dark - but this sequel had more excitement, adventure, and exploring. Plus the two mice are entering a whole new environment. The music always gets me excited, the backgrounds are awesome, and the entire story made me wish I was there! I wanted to fly on the eagle, I wanted to escape with mice, I wanted to be with talking animals, and I wanted to face all the intense adventures! It honestly surprises me that people overlook this movie. Sure it's not a musical/no princess/no cute animals (or not as cute as others), but it's not suppose to have any of those. It's just a fun adventure to watch and experience. Rent it out on DVD and give it at least one viewing; it is worth it!

ikrani Disney has had a history of taking touching, beautiful movies that were entertaining and high quality and using them as a crutch for really poor sequels, prequels and "midquels" that have no effort put into them and are just made to make a quick profit. Seriously, Disney executives, have you no knowledge of what Walt was all about when it came to movies? Down Under is the exact opposite. It takes a boring if not slightly humorous movie from 20 years prior and makes a dark, emotionally touching thrill ride of a sequel on armored vehicles and giant eagles. It takes McLeach, no more than a humble poacher trying to make a dishonest buck, and turns him into a cut-throat knife-wielding killer who may very well be one of the smartest villains Disney ever produced. Hell, it makes AN ALBATROSS (voiced by John Candy) GETTING MEDICAL TREATMENT into an exciting subplot. Only in this movie, people, only in THIS movie.The visuals and CGI are spectacular, the shots of the golden eagle being some of the best. The heroes, the villains, and the support cast are all fun to watch; even McLeach's pet lizard-komoto-dragon-salamander-thingy is worth a few laughs. There are no musical numbers, forced or otherwise, to interfere with this movie's grand performance. Without a doubt, one of the most underrated unacknowledged MOVIES, Disney's or anyone else's, of all time. Why this didn't explode into a franchise is anyone's guess.Unless you're a Disney executive.

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.