Every once in a while, I like to go back and revisit media that I have not watched/read since childhood, in order to see if they hold up. Most recently, I did this with two of Disney's animated features: The Rescuers (1977) and its sequel, The Rescuers Down Under (1990).
Now, as a young'un, I watched these movies in the reverse order from when they were originally released (as a matter of fact, The Rescuers Down Under is one of the earliest films I can recall watching) and so, for years, my opinion was that the sequel was the better movie. As an adult, this is no longer the case.
Credit where credit is due, there are certain aspects in which Down Under outdoes its predecessor: For one, It's undeniably a much better-looking film,(though the art-style of the original The Rescuers is not without its charm), with some truly impressive flying-scenes and as far as child-characters go, Down Under's Cody is more palatable than The Rescuer's Penny. I also kind of liked Jake, the kangaroo rat and appreciated that the writers didn't go the obvious route of making him into a complete douchebag.
As for each film's respective main villain; Madame Medusa and Percival C. MacLeach? I'd say they're about equal in my eyes. Neither is among my favorite villains (or even favorite Disney-villains), but they both play their roles well and are entertainingly loathsome (though MacLeach has the better animal sidekick; Joanna the Goanna is easily the best character introduced in the sequel and completely steals the film).
So, why do I prefer The Rescuers to its sequel? Well, one major reason why is that, although both movies are the same length, the original makes much better use of its runtime, with every scene advancing the plot in some way. Meanwhile, Down Under gives way too much attention to the antics of bumbling comic relief characters, who either should have had their screen-time reduced (Wilbur), or be cut from the movie altogether (Frank).
Another reason is that, despite the movie being called The Rescuers Down Under, there isn't really that much of the two titular characters in it. Bernard and Bianca does not appear until almost half an hour into the movie (and keep in mind that we're talking about a film that runs to a grand total of 77 minutes) and throughout the film, they feel oddly inconsequential. Though at least, Bernard actually gets to do things, unlike his colleague/love-interest. Poor Bianca is just completely wasted in the sequel. It's a shame, because she was a great character in the first movie, easily the most charismatic and engaging female lead to come out of Disney up until that point and would remain so, until the Renaissance Era.
Despite what I wrote above, I must make it clear that I don't think The Rescuers Down Under is a bad movie. Certainly, I've seen far worse animated films, including worse from Disney (if you put a gun to my head and forced me to chose between watching The Rescuers Down Under or Home on the Range, I'd pick the former without any hesitation). I simply do not agree with those who think that its an underrated classic, or superior to its predecessor.
And that includes my younger self.
No comments:
Post a Comment