The Rescuers Down UnderNovember 16, 1990
The RAS agents, Miss Bianca and Bernard, race to Australia to save a boy and a rare golden eagle from a murderous poacher
Release Year: 1990
Rating: 6.7/10 (10,654 voted)
Stars: Bob Newhart, Eva Gabor, John Candy
Cody, a boy from Mugwomp Flats responds to a distress call about a trapped giant Golden Eagle called Marahute. Freeing her, he gains a close friendship with the bird. However, Cody is soon abducted by the murderous poacher, Percival McLeach, who is after that bird which is of a highly endangered species and therefore an extremely profitable quarry. In a panic, a mouse Cody freed from one of McLeach's traps sends a desperate call for help to the Rescue Aid Society in New York City who assigns their top agents, Miss Bianca and Bernard to the task. With transportation provided by the goofy Albatross, Wilbur, the agents arrive in Austrailia and link up with the RAS' local field operative, Jake The Kangaroo Rat. Together, the trio must race against time to find Cody, stop McLeach and save Marahute.
Writers: Jim Cox, Karey Kirkpatrick
George C. Scott
Release Date: 16 November 1990
Did You Know?
The first Disney animated feature to use fully-rendered CG backgrounds (for the aerial shots of the UN building and the Sydney Opera House, and the globe for the relay sequence).
In the scene where Marahute is carrying Cody through the sky, there is a moment where she starts tickling him with her claw, and at one frame, Cody's belly button disappears.
Come on, darling. Let's get a move out.
I have always been one of the, maybe, eight or nine big fans of this movie
and I have only one small question about it.
WHY CAN'T THEY MAKE MORE LIKE THIS???
If you have not seen this movie yet, you must. It's the first Disney movie
to use fully rendered CGI backgrounds throughout and you definately get the
sense that the animators wanted to play with this new method. What I'm
getting at is that some of you may want to down some motion sickness
There are *no* song and dance numbers. Reason being that this is a
surprisingly dark, more emotionally complex story for a Disney movie. They
went out on a limb and chose not to break the tone up too
This is the number two Lost Disney Movie (number one, without a doubt, is
"the Hunchback of Notre Dame", which I also love). It's own creators barely
acknowledge its existance. The very best evidence of this is on the new
video release box's plot summary, where a MAJOR character's gender is
On the other hand, I sort of enjoy the idea of a "cult" Disney movie.
Instead of marketing "Down Under" to death, Disney can only be accused of
the opposite mistake.
So, anyway, here I go again running to this movie's defence. I'll tackle
the one major critisism of it before I go. Many critics were expecting
another "Rescuers". In my humble opinion, these two movies are two entirely
different animals. The original "Rescuers" is an example of where Disney
was in the sixties and seventies. "Down Under" is a time capsule of late
eighties, early nineties Disney. In other words, you can't really say that
one is better than the other as the only thing they have in common are three
characters (what I'm getting at is that this should be thought of more as
"Rescue Aid Society: the Next Generation").
By the way, I've got an idea that I'm just going to throw out to the
proverbial wolves here. Why not make more "Rescuers" movies instead of
sequels to Disney movies where follow-up stories make no sence? They are
sitting on one heck of a potential franchise here. Just thought I'd let you