DAC 29: The Rescuers Down Under

The Rescuers Down Under - 7.1/10

Okay, even as a kid I was cynical about sequels. I remember seeing ads for this film and thinking to myself, "Why would they do that? It's not going to be as good as the original." Also something along the lines of "They're just trying to continue it because the first one was popular," though with that part I wasn't even really old enough to understand what I was upset about yet. I did see the film anyway, but didn't like it as much as the original, even though I didn't dislike it like I thought I would.

It's hard to judge this movie on its own merits because you inevitably have to compare it to the first installment. I think a lot of the charm that was there the first time around was lost on this one. They focused on the comic relief characters a lot more, and nothing against John Candy (of whom I am a fan), but he was way over the top in this and it was distracting. Also, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor were getting old, and it showed in their performances. Just not as much energy as before. The new character, Jake, seemed like sort of a jerk at first, which was intentional I'm sure, but you warm up to him as time goes on.

Shifting gears, the music was all right, and combined with the atmosphere it was clear they were trying to make this an adventure movie, but there just wasn't enough actual adventure to pull it off. The flying scenes were great, and sure there was a death by waterfall, but that's not sufficient for an adventure movie. I like the calmer, spookier feel of the first one much more, and the subtler, softer music that went with it - as well as the darker overall atmosphere.

And, can I just say I was bothered way more than I should have been that the boy spoke with an American accent? What the hell? They always manage to get all the British accents they need, but they can't find any Australian actors? Half the characters in this movie sounded either American or British. More than half. It was actually less common to have one that sounded Australian. The only one who could get away with it was George C. Scott, who like Vincent Price before him was clearly enjoying every minute of his character, and we get a great villain as a result. Much like Medusa, his primary motivation is greed, and also like her we are shown just how despicable he is through his treatment of an innocent child. Good lord, Medusa would have let Penny die, but at least she never tried to actively murder the girl.

Another of my favorite parts of the original film - Bernard and Bianca's relationship - was barely touched on at all here. There was a running gag about Bernard trying to propose and always being misunderstood or interrupted, and we do get a nice, satisfying payoff to that at the end of the film, but that was it. The movie barely even paid any attention to them, despite them being the eponymous characters.

Finally, there were just a lot of inconsistencies. As one example, I was amazed in the first few minutes of the film at how badass the boy character was when he scaled a cliff sans gear that would give Spider-man himself trouble - with his bare hands, and wasn't even winded when he got to the top. I thought, "Damn, this kid is the shit. Who cares if he has an American accent? He could probably kill you with his toe." Then two scenes later he falls into a hole and can't climb out. Wtf? Another one: when captured by the villain, he befriends a bunch of animals that have also been captured, and they make a couple of failed escape attempts. When the villain lets the kid go (all part of his plan), he says something like "Say goodbye to your new friends. It'll be the last time you ever see 'em." And he's right. None of those characters are ever seen or even mentioned again. What happened to them? Are we not supposed to care? It feels lazy and unfinished and I don't like it.

One thing I did really like was the background animation. The Australian outback is pretty much a supporting character in this film, and they spared no expense making it look absolutely breathtaking. Still, if pretty things were all it took to make a good movie, Michael Bay would have an Oscar by now.

So okay, maybe I would have liked this film a little more if I hadn't seen the first one. But all the problems I mentioned like accents, low energy, overuse of comedy and general inconsistencies would still be there, and they'd still bring it down. And I did see the first one, and it's reasonable to assume both that A.)most others who watch this will have as well, and B.)anyone who has will compare the two. As a kid and again as an adult I was underwhelmed and kind of disappointed.