Yet another terrible Disney sequel...
935558
I loved the first Aladdin movie, it's a classic. The sequel's ok because I love Iago, but Disney didn't offer Robing Williams enough cash to do the sequel-so there's a big loss. Little kids might like this- but not adults who are into the "classic" movies. Yet again, Disney wastes time dishing out another sequel that sucks. I suggest getting Simba's Pride: LK 2, even that's more entertaining.
3291597
So here's the plot, son runs away from dad and dad must swim through the big blue sea with his pal played by Ellen ... oh wait, that's Finding Nemo, but oddly enough we have the same plot.  Son lion takes off because he can't roar, Dad lion must chase him via tugboat with no food and or water other than his companions to the coast of what I have to presume is Africa. And supposedly the hilarity ensues.

Here's the problem -- it mostly doesn't.  Oh, we have alligators in the sewers, we have a squirrel in love with a giraffe and the movie's saving grace - Eddie Izzard as an ill-tempered koala.  Then we have the other 3/4's of the movie that includes wilderbeests that want to be carnivores lead by William Shatner.  You would think, you have Capt. Kirk here, let's use it.  Nope, let's make him a nutter and damned scary.  In fact let's make the movie so boring that the 7 year old girl in front of me asked her mom if she could go play video games in the lobby.  Mom made her stay and listen to the preaching, the moralizing and the tired, retread soundtrack.

Disney, Disney - where for art thou Lion King?  Disney is losing the Dreamworks and the other animation studios due to dreck like this.  Shrek, Shreck 2, both Ice Ages, Nemo -- all of these had jokes for kids, jokes for adults, soundtracks that worked.  And when they gave the moral of the story you really didn't feel like you were hit with a two by four.

Pros:

1. Eddie Izzard

2. Eddie Izzard

3. Eddie Izzard

4. Did I mention Eddie Izzard. I would pay to listen to him read the phone book and probably be just as entertained.

Cons:

1. Not using their voice talent correctly.  Jeanine Garafolo was really wasted, as was Patrick Warburton.

2. The soundtrack - some of the sounds were old 10 years ago and were not updated in any size shape or form

3. The script/plot.  Can we snooze as the grand secret of Samson the Wild is revealed? Pssst this is not the Crying Game or Sixth Sense,  even a 5 year old will figure it out first.

4. Not using the characters - Alligators in the sewers - c'mon use 'em guys!

5. Using dialogue to deliver the moralsof the story like a two by four to the head.

6. Having 5 or 6 morals so that the story is unfocused

7. Scary villians that aren't that scary and don't get their due on screen

8. Sight gags that are dumber than a 2 year old's knock knock joke

Please, oh Gods of animation films, let Disney/Pixar's next film Cars be a world better.
3671408
Continuing the Disney tradition of killing one or both parents, in this installment we almost get to see Ariel's mother bashed by a pirate ship.  Apparently, that was enough for the distraught King Triton to banish music from his kingdom......FOREVER!  Yeah, that didn't make any sense to me either but there it is.  The tyrant forbids everyone from listening to and/or participating in song.  They can't even hum a mournful tune.  Not a ditty to be had anywhere.  So sad.  And incomprehensibly stupid, what is this a fascist state under the sea!?  Well, at least they weren't burning books.  Meanwhile, there's this EVIL governess (voiced by Sally Field) who rides roughshod over the seven sad mopey daughters of King Triton.  They spend their time primping and whining while the EVIL governess plots to overthrow Sebastian (voiced by Samuel E. Wright) so she can become second only to the sad and dictatorial King.  And!  Once again, the angry despot wields his trident and ruins everyone's fun.  Characters are thrown in a dungeon.  There's a prison break.  A double homicide is mentioned and attempted.  It's all quite jolly.  The songs, if you can call them that, are entirely forgettable and fortunately few in number.  They do perform a version of Jump in the Line (Shake, Shake, Shake, Senora) that feels oddly out of place, but in this case seems par for the course.  At least it's not quite as objectionable as the second cartoon in this series (known as the BIG mistake).  This one at least makes for passable entertainment.  I'd watch it again.
2976369
The first one is 100 times better. This one has a disjointed, forced plot that is only made bearable by the parkour (sp?) skills of the French lead. Beyond that, it is just plain dumb, sadly, that didn't keep me from watching it to its conclusion :)
4601096
There are plenty of bad video game sequels. Remember "Simon's Quest", the sequel to the original "Castlevania", or "Zelda 2" for the NES?  Why is it that so many sequels are botched?  I'll get straight to the point: "Tooie" is a disappointment--a big one. All the fun gameplay from the first game has been replaced by stupid search-and defeat puzzles, and "Doom"-like mazes. Gosh, if I wanted to play "Doom", I'd go play it!  And caveat to those who get "motion sickness" from playing video games (I don't know how else to explain it).  I can't play "Banjo Tooie" for more than fifteen minutes without getting sick to my stomach--really, I'm not exaggerating!  The worst part is, is that I adore "Banjo Kazooie"; it's such a shame that they had to ruin the possibilities of what could of been a good sequel. Gosh, I waited two years for this?
2504456
The story is thin and really makes no sense. The music is just weird... songs aren't really songs at all -- more spoken than sung. And the melodies are really old mambos, generic jazz and stuff. It is just so sad, considering how wonderful the songs in the original were.

Disney is famous for killing off a parent, but they do it within two minutes of the movie. What used to be a touching moment in their animated classics, is now a cheap gimmick which disturbed my kids.

The animation quality is okay, but you can really tell they are taking shortcuts.

But most important is the storyline... I can't understand why they didn't work a little harder on a story that held a child's interest. My twin girls were so looking forward to this, and within twenty minutes they were squirming on the couch and looking for toys to play with.

Just a big disappointment. Disney should spend as much time creating the DVD as they do on marketing it.
2377405
"The Rescuers Down Under" is supposedly a sequel to its' original.  However, the dictionary defines a "sequel" to be a "work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work."  In other words, a sequel is supposed to extend and continue a storyline... however, "The Rescuers Down Under" fails to continue a storyline, rather it recreates the storyline in the original into a twisted case of dj vu.  Basically, if you've seen the original, you've already seen the less pleasing "sequel."

 This time around a young blonde boy, by the name of Cody, replaces our charming Penny from the original.  Cody is sent out by his animal friends to rescue a trapped golden eagle.  Unfortunately, the villainess poacher who captured the golden eagle in the first place out of greed, doesn't take too kindly to this rescuing and locks Cody up to keep him out of the way.

 The Rescue Aid Society is sent out to rescue Cody, and we see a triumphant return of the same pairing of voices for Bernard and Miss Bianca (Newhart and Gabor).  Since these two characters were in the original, we already know their personalities, lucky thing, because the sequel takes no time to portray any of the character's personalities.  Other characters in the film are introduced with no personality, who serve only one purpose -- to make the film happen (although we would have been happier if it hadn't happened in the first place).

Bernard and Bianca are promising characters (since they came from the original) but unfortunately are overwhelmed by the less-pleasing qualities of the movie.  Including weak characters, a repeated storyline, an unoriginal villain who has no personality to define him by other than "the bad guy."  Everything about this movie is just an ailing repeat of what has happened in the original, even their mode of transportation, an albatross named "Wilbur" is a repeat.

 The film parallels their efforts to find and free Cody, who is held captive throughout the film while the villain, McLeach, attempts to intimidate the boy to tell him the whereabouts of the insanely large eagle's nest.  Which, as viewers of the original can see, is a complete repeat from the original.  In both films the villains held the children captive because they needed the children to help themselves quench their greed.

 Cody never gives McLeach what he wants, his death is faked so that the rangers won't come looking for him, and we watch the unoriginal story take place against beautiful scenery until the end where we find a literal cliff-hanger, and Cody is reunited with his mother.  It would have been nice, though, if the film had actually shown us Cody and his mother being reunited - she thinks he's dead, after all.  And the captive animals who were also in McLeach's lair, we find, were introduced only to be forgotten.

Overall, there are some beautiful sequences, Australia (where the film takes place), looks very appealing and the characters are all dressed in cleaned-up animation.  But the film itself is unoriginal with only a one or two breath-taking scenes.

Ironically, it seems that the fans of the original dislike the sequel while those who disliked the original enjoyed the sequel.  I never quite understood this since the sequel is merely an ailing repeat of the original, maybe some people find unoriginal films to be appealing...
1196095
I'm suprised nobody else agrees that this movie was the turning point of Disney's fall of quality....because it is! In alot of ways, this film is Disney's worst 'cause of it's hype and it's lack of anything of real substance and human touch. The characters were increadibly 2 dementional (even more than most animated films). The film started out GREAT and the animation is top notch...but the movie takes a nose dive in anything good after it's opening. Most of the songs were quite bland and simply did nothing for character. The life lessons in this movie are...well simply not there. The jokes are embarrasing to hear. Mustofa's hench men are mind-numbingly dumb to watch (especially the "Nazi-march" at night). I think this film was done so half way 'cause it was a rip off to begin with (Japan's "Kimba")...so Disney didn't have to work on story, character, or it what it could offer. I would never ever try to show my child this film (if he/she wants to...that's cool). There are WAY more better animated/Disney films like the real classics (Pinoccio, Bambi, Toy Story, etc.) that contain real life lessons and entertainment. This movie is just plain pathetic.
2558704
Sorry fans (I'm aware there are many, and this review will likely be attacked), but this movie is worse than the original one which I stated here on Amazon that I hated with a passion. The hatred towards this stupid, pointless and annoying series only grows with the release of this one. I have friends who've seen this movie and for the longest time I wouldn't allow them to convince me to watch this movie, and finally I caved. I wish I didn't, because I want that time back from my life. Just plain stupid!
4030138
Yes, my daughter loves it, but I have to say this is the worst of the movies that they've put out.

What's the story line?  Who are these people?  Why are Mariposa and her friend indentured servants to the two bratty girls?  I'm not expecting Pixar-level story telling here, but come on... this thing is a train wreck.

And yes, being a parent fan of the franchise (meaning, no, I wouldn't watch these normally, but my daughter loves them), I miss Kelly Sheridan's voice in the lead role.

That said, hardly any child is going to notice or care about such adult "gripes", but we DO end up watching these too, so it would be nice if we got to be entertained at least to the level we've come to expect, with movies like Magic of Pegasus, or Princess and the Pauper.

Your kids (if they are age appropriate to the film) will likely love it, but you may be bored to tears, or annoyed to no end as they watch it over, and over, and over...
4528599
I really wanted to like this movie, but found it impossible. I've read all but the last book in the series, and loved them. I knew going in that this was more "inspired by" rather than "based on," but I was stunned that beyond character names and the very general idea, it bore almost no resemblance to the books. And even though they used the character names, the characters were totally different. I mean, the Spook a drunk? Hah! And the Spook doesn't know monster lore? Laughable. This movie was clearly made by those who nothing about the books, and who didn't respect the books enough to even attempt to do them justice. Shame on them!

So being thoroughly untrue to the books aside, how is the movie?

Astonishingly bad, as it turns out. Oh the effects are great, but the production looks most like Xena Warrior Princess or Hercules. In other words, cheesy. The direction is uninspired, the acting mediocre, the script horrendous. In fact the only bright spots were the effects and the actress who played Alice. She was a fresh, beautiful face, who managed to elevate the material she had to work with.

In short this was a waste of $5.99, and I hope they remake this soon... Make the remake dark, wet, dreary, atmospheric, scary as hell, and somehow keep the same actress to play Alice (I think I can forgive making the characters older).

Please, do yourself the favor and skip this one.
4668213
It turns out that Lucas was never as talented as anyone thought he was.  The only reason why the original Star Wars films turned out to be a fun trilogy is because he was prevented by either budget or special effects limitations of the time period.  Otherwise, the films would have turned out to be the overblown messes his latest trilogy is turning out to be.  The evidence?  The so-called special editions of his original trilogy.
The worst offenses of these retooled films arises when Lucas creates new scenes which largely consist of Jar Jar Binks level comic relief.  The second worse offenses consist of unnecessary CGI characters added to pre-existing scenes which are glaringly obvious and look completely out of place.  The least of Lucas' offenses consist of touch-ups on old special effects which, in a few cases, are actual improvements.  But even then, Lucas manages to screw up, especially at the end of A New Hope when the original exciting scene of the Death Star blowing up is replaced by an extremely lame burst of light.
ILM has fallen too much in love with having actors perform in front of blue screens with obviously computer-generated characters.  At least in the "new" scene of Han Solo conversing with Jabba the Hutt Harrison Ford actually got to perform on a real set, but Jabba himself looks extremely pathetic in comparison to the animatronics version seen in Return of the Jedi and, furthermore, is much smaller in size.  This scene did not make the first release of A New Hope because they did not have the technology to create Jabba, but in retrospect this was a blessing.  Jabba comes off as a joke when seen walking beside Han and demanding his money.
For those who have only seen the retooled ET on DVD, Spielberg's changes (e.g. replacing the government agents' guns with walkie-talkies, and cleaning up the kids' dialogue) are far less ridiculous or a kick in the fans' teeth in comparison to the changes Lucas made.  Lucas and Spielberg really need to leave their old movies alone.  I dread to think what would happen to THX-1138 (a happy ending complete with a Busby Berkley muscial number and guest appearances by a computer generated Elmo perhaps?).
1873485
1.  Cheap packaging - (DVD's are stacked)
2.  The movies themselves have not been restored (like every release was prior to this..)
3.  Two movies on one blu-ray disk (not convenient if you want to separate)
4.  No real extras on the Blu-ray (and what extras they did include they put them on the DVD's)

I own each and every Disney Blu-ray movie and this by far is the absolute worst job I have ever seen Disney do.

Who ever is responsible for this release should truly be ashamed!
3374368
Another unnecessary addition from Disney.  Visually nice, Franco is annoying.  Tries to be funny but fails.  Makes Kunis ugly...so that sucked.
2311526
I am one of those people that loved the first movie. It had a great plot and thrilling action that was relentless. Therefore, I was really looking forward to getting a second helping. Sadly, I could not have been more disappointed. This time around, the plot is pretty fill, and as a result, they just went with over the top action scenes that get annoying extremely fast.

A girl that can't pass her driving test all of a sudden can drive away from trained killers using a stick shift? A hostage that can measuring distance listening to the time between explosions? Really? The movie, may have a small redeeming factor with the entertainment, but that's all it is, SMALL, and not enough to give it more than one star.

Pretty much everything that was good about the first one got lost here. I guess it happens in many cases, but this one is one of the worst yet. To make matters worse, the conversation and action in the final confrontation is just senseless. I could not emphasize this enough, STAY AWAY!
2006575
Read Amazon Queen's post from February 2014, and you'll have my sentiments about this disappointing sequel almost to a tee.

IM3 felt more like another bad Terminator sequel, with a little bit of Iron Man thrown in and, oddly enough, with Gwyneth Paltrow transforming into the T-1000 at one point.  (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

Positively disastrous choice of main villain?  Strike one.  (The phony "Mandarin" was downright insulting.  Speaking of which, this movie belongs in the same crapper where he made his two concubines hide in that one idiotic scene!  Yeah, it really does stink that much.)

Almost zero connection with the Avengers or the other Phase 1 MCU movies?  Strike two.  (Honestly, if you never watch IM3, you will not miss a single important piece of information regarding Tony Stark or his fellow Avengers, except for the fact that Stark suffered temporarily with PTSD following the Battle of New York from the first Avengers movie. That's seriously all you need to know about IM3!)

Vulgar language used by the "superhero" when conversing with a child?  Strike three.  (Terrible taste there, Marvel. Coarse language, which has no place in films marketed to kids in the first place, should come ONLY from the villains and never the heroes.  Keep the moral clarity black & white, please.)

Do yourself a favor:  Ignore this film and go see Captain America: The Winter Soldier instead so you can understand how good a comic-based movie actually can be!  (Actually, when it comes to solo films, Cap has been kicking ALL his fellow Avengers' hineys!)
2692591
I don't know how disney could screw p a christmas carol!  All they had to do was copy it, they left out key ingredients to bore us with flying characters & buildings.  I guess they thought people would be to busy in the theaters going wow to the 3-D, and forget they sacrificed story lines.  One glaring example was when the ghost of christmas past was showing him his past, they left out the death of Scrooge's sister & how he screwed over Mr. Fezziwig (hope I spelled it correctly).  All that happened in his past was he was left at school over christmas & his fiance' dumped him.  There are better christmas carols out there.  Skip this one!