Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:24 pm
I love Rescuers, and I'll be getting this DVD, I think. Thanks for all your help!
The Rescuers:
"Disney feature-length cartoon about the International Mouse Prisoners' Aid Society (motto: "We never fail to do what's right") coming to the rescue of a homely orphan girl held captive in a Louisiana bayou. It has some engaging characters (a dragonfly named Evinrude who bears a faint resemblance to Ben Turpin; a sagging-breasted, false-eyelashed villainess named Medusa) and some rousing action (a couple of crocodiles trying to ferret out two mice from a pipe organ; the plucky Evinrude trying to outrace a voracious horde of vampire bats). The animation, for fluidity and detail, would seem pretty pleasing by the standards of Saturday morning TV, but by the standards the Disney studio has taught us, it is pretty disappointing. Not that the kids will care. 1977." *(1 star)
The Rescuers Down Under:
"The first feature-length sequel in the annals of Disney animation. The profusion of computer graphics no doubt gives the thing a diminished aura of heroism. And yet, the low-altitude, surface-skimming, simulated aerial shot across the Outback and into an open window is an exciting start. And the flight of the Great Golden Eagle upon its release from a poacher's trap revels in the sheer freedom of the animated medium, never mind the avian species. And there is ravening and refreshing good use made of the indigenous wildlife of Australia, far more interesting than the reappearing mice and albatross of the original RESCUERS. And there's a good conniving villain too, thanks less to any visuals than to the roistering verbals of George C. Scott: "I didn't make it all the way through third grade for nothing!" With the voices of Bob Newhart, Eva Gabor, and John Candy; directed by Hendel Butoy and Mike Gabriel." **(2 stars)
This is from local reviewer Duncan Shepherd. His emphasis is on fluidity of animation apparrently. I wouldn't really care about that as long as the story is good and the characters interesting. Which they are. How many other animation pieces focus on other things other than the actual recreation of the illusion of life? Just think of all the experimental stuff from the late 50's to present time (lots of critically acclaimed award winners there).
Penny in the first movie is a great character, much better than the boy in TRDU (see, I don't even know his name!). And Medusa is much better than George C's character (I don't know his name either!). John Candy is also too obviously himself, the first albatross is better, and though I don't know the actor's name, I recognise him from lots of other Disney films.
The sequel always seemed too mechanical and calculated in comparison to the original, which always hits all the right emotions. Even the songs are great.
) but I loved the original so much more. I love the villians, Snoops and Medusa were possibly as fun as Yzma and Kronk... no wait, they weren't!