The Rescuers Down Under

November 16th, 1990


The Rescuers Down Under

No valid json found

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)

Director: Hendel Butoy

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

Bob Newhart - Bernard (voice)
Eva Gabor - Miss Bianca (voice)
John Candy - Wilbur (voice)
Tristan Rogers - Jake (voice)
Adam Ryen - Cody (voice)
George C. Scott - McLeach (voice)
Wayne Robson - Frank (voice)
Douglas Seale - Krebbs (voice)
Frank Welker - Joanna (voice)
Bernard Fox - Chairman / Doctor (voice)
Peter Firth - Red (voice)
Billy Barty - Baitmouse (voice)
Ed Gilbert - Francois (voice)
Carla Meyer - Faloo / Mother (voice)
Russi Taylor - Nurse Mouse (voice)

Release Date: 16 November 1990

Gross: $27,931,461 (USA)

Technical Specs

Runtime: USA:

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).

Revealing mistakes: 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.

Miss Bianca: Come on, darling. Let's get a move out.

User Review

Underappreciated Gem

Rating: 10/10

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.


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 medicine first.

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 much.

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 misidentified.

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 know.


Comments are closed.