The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under are both fun movies, but Down Under is a little more re-watchable. I think this is partly because the mood is more up-beat. Lots of bright sunshine as opposed to the swamps of The Rescuers, but the biggest thing, I think, is the endings.
The Rescuers ending is (in my opinion) flawed. We have this incredibly tense scene in the underground treasure trove with skeletons for atmosphere, a ticking clock provided by the rising water, and the villains showing exactly how evil they can get. It feels like the climax -but it isn't. The story moves into the actual end involving fireworks and fuzzy animals running every which way. The general high-jinx feels anti-climatic.
The Rescuers Down Under is smart enough to keep the ending streamline. Once Marahute is captured, everything narrows down to keeping Cody from getting killed now that he's no longer useful to the villain. There is no lengthy scene after the climax at the waterfall. In fact, the comic relief (Wilber) is stuck on baby-sitting duty and out for the count.
Endings are, in my opinion, the toughest things to write. Everything is supposed to come together, but often there's a few bits poking out higgly-piggly, that just don't want to be braided in. And then there are all those minor characters, and what happened to them? Sometimes you need an aftermath. `Watership Down,' for example, wouldn't be nearly as awesome to read if it didn't go on to explain how the events of the story shaped the future. But Richard Adams didn't kill his tension with it. His climax is still the most suspenseful part of the book -and that's what the climax should be.