Top 10 Reasons Why The Rescuers Down Under is Better Than The Rescuers

egnomac The first Rescuers movie, though not great, was a pretty decent Disney movie. The sequel which people never really asked for was a very surprising good Disney sequel. Heck it was the very first Disney sequel and it managed to surpass the original in so many ways.

The Top Ten

1 Percival McLeach was a better villain

While Madam Medusa was an okay villain she pails in comparison to McLeach who pretty much steals the show thanks to great voice acting from George C. Scott. - egnomac

Agreed, Mc Leach was awesomne and had such an amazing design, his design is so awesomne that a Disney movie after this movie basically stole his design (Rourke from Atlantis) - darthvadern

2 The Climax was more epic
3 Percival McLeach was more badass

If Bianca was a ten foot mouse she would have showed him. She had Bernard do it though.

Obviously - darthvadern

4 The secondary characters were better

To be honest the secondary characters in the first movie weren't really that memorable, in the sequel the new secondary characters really stand out among them include Wilbur, Jake, Joanna, and even Frank the lizard. - egnomac

Joanna was badass, she had a really hilarious scene envolving her trying to steal eggs from McLeach - darthvadern

5 Cody was a better character than Penny

Penny in the original was a pretty bland character Cody on the other hand had more personality. - egnomac

I don't know, I thought both are equally good - darthvadern

6 It had more action

Although this isn't a valid reason in my opinion, I agree with this - darthvadern

7 It has a much darker tone

Not to say that the first movie wasn't dark especially when Madam Medusa keeps Penny down a hole with the water rising and keeps her there until she finds the devils eye diamond, in the sequel Mcleach is a poacher who wants to capture Maruhute the great eagle for money and kidnaps the kid to get him to locate the eagle's nest so he can capture her and not only that but he sends Joanna his pet goanna to devour the eagle's eggs so it stays rare and he can sell it for a higher price and then tries to feed Cody to the crocodiles. - egnomac

The ending with McLeach trying to feed Cody to the crocs is so dark and creepy (in a good way) - darthvadern

8 Wilbur was more memorable than Orville

Orville was a funny character in the first movie but he only had little screen time appearing when Bernard and Bianca get him to fly them to Devil's Bayou and then disappears from the rest of the movie only returning at the very end of the movie, Wilbur in the sequel is given more screen time and is given more personality thanks to great voice work by John Candy. - egnomac

Wilbur is awesomne and has a much more goofy personality, Orville was also good but, a bit filler due barely having any personality - darthvadern

9 The animation is better

Though its expected for the sequel to have a better animation especially when released in the 90's. - egnomac

10 It had no songs

I definitely agree with this one, songs in movies are usually just in the way and you want to skip them, but in this sequel there are none with is a huge relief - darthvadern

Though I don't have a problem with the first movie having songs some of the songs were forgettable and felt out of place. - egnomac

BAdd New Item