Gulliver's Travels (2010) User Reviews

Well, certainly it didn't blow my mind, at all, but it is fun, nice family fun

[RainDogJr · 6/10 · 3 January 2011]

Saw this one in 3D. First thing you should know: there's no reason to pay the extra money for the 3D version as pretty much the coolest 3D stuff I saw that day (saw it last Saturday afternoon) was on the trailer of the new Transformers movie. Second thing you should know: I'm not familiar at all with the book or with any of the other movies. Maybe that's why I'm one of the few ones here in IMDb who gave more than 4 stars to this movie.

Anyway, there's really nothing amazing going on here. The story is as predictable as you can imagine and well, Jack Black is yet again playing Jack Black. We all knew this, and frankly I don't think there's a person who can't tell how is this movie going to be like before seeing it.

I knew, and went to see it anyways as it was pretty much *the* movie of 2010's Christmas. I mean, I'm a sucker for Jack Black movies and even though the trailer never really convinced me, I had to check it out. Maybe The School of Rock and the Tenacious D movie (big fan of both) were more than enough for the punk rock Jack Black but it seems is inevitable to have him "rocking". So here some references to Guitar Hero and KISS are present. Jack Black is put as a sucker for rock music and movies, Star Wars especially. That simple thing delivers the best moments of the movie: Gulliver making the Lilliputians act Stars Wars and Titanic and perform as KISS. It ain't pop culture references heaven but definitely delivers the goods (also some Avatar references were funny).

Gulliver's Travels may not be Jack Black's funniest movie, but in the end it was just what I expected: a decent family entertainment that will be soon forgotten but that is enjoyable to watch.

Jack Black's version of Gulliver's Travels isn't too bad if you have lowered expectations...

[tavm · 6/10 · 3 January 2011]

In my lifetime, I've seen a few previous adaptations of "Gulliver's Travels", 1) a series of short cartoons by Hanna-Barbera on the "Banana Splits" TV program, 2) the Max Fleischer animated feature from 1939, and 3) the NBC miniseries starring Ted Danson. And so, I've now seen this new movie starring Jack Black which, unlike the others I've just mentioned, initially takes place in modern day-New York City where the title character is a mail room deliverer who yearns to be a writer for the newspaper he works for but doesn't always put himself out there. Oh, and he also has a crush on the stunning editor (Amanda Peet) whose office he always passes through despite not always having mail for her. Anyway, when he finally bluffs his way through an assignment, Black's Gulliver uses a boat to go to the Bermuda Triangle where he finds himself shipwrecked to an island...Guess where he winds up? Okay, I didn't expect this movie to be faithful to the book at all especially judging from the previews so I wasn't too disappointed on that point. And I did find many scenes-especially those that parodied Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Titantic, and the rock group KISS-pretty funny. And Black, along with supporting players Emily Blunt, Jason Segel, and occasionally Ms. Peet provide their moments. But if this was your first time encountering Lemuel Gulliver, you'd definitely wonder what was so classic about the book he's in (assuming you even knew about it). Actually, I admit I only read about his adventures in Lilliput and Brobdingnag since the book I borrowed from my elementary school library was condensed to only those two adventures though like I said, I did see the Ted Danson miniseries that also had his other travels. So in summary, if you know what to expect from Jack Black, you probably won't be too disappointed. Others, beware...

Gulliver's travesty.

[st-shot · 5/10 · 25 December 2010]

In the latest Gulliver go round ( there have been at least a dozen variations since 1902) we have a production of enormous precise detail vividly brought alive by state of the art special effects, grand set design and lavish costuming all crushed by the uninspired casting of the slobbering one note buffoon Jack Black in the title role. In his pudgy mitts the Swiftian satire becomes another heavy handed, predictable goof ball routine of sly eyed impishness and soft hearted sweetness applied in the same manner as in the rest of his "zany" canon.

Lemuel Gulliver sets out for the Bermuda Triangle to prove himself as a journalist and to win the heart of the girl of his dreams. Blown off course by a raging tropical storm he finds himself on the the tiny island of the tiny people, Liliput. Gaining their trust he is soon the rage of the land improving infrastructure and counseling the lovelorn. All goes well until he is challenged by General Edward and is humiliated before all who look up to him. Can Gulliver redeem himself? What's more important is that the filmmakers have enough story to fill the second half with fun pyrotechnics.

Black's cuddly bear, man child grows more tiresome with each performance and in Gulliver it's lights out early with the same boorish routine the ubiquitous media gadfly projects whether playing a role or doing an interview. Director Rob Letterman's film does have a precious look and he does inject some nice Python humor here and there but it is all obscured by Black's beached whale of a Gulliver. For lazy parents looking for a baby sitter, the film might serve as that crazy and funny uncle that can occupy the kiddies for two hours. Make sure though you send them with an older sibling. Unlike this loser of a film it will be a win, win for you to abstain.

A minor crime against cinema; a major crime against literature!

[barnabyrudge · 3/10 · 4 January 2011]

First things first: if you are watching Jack Black's version of Gulliver's Travels because you're a fan of the original book, you might want to skip it altogether. Gone is the literate and satirical edge that has kept the story in print for over two centuries. Instead we have a loud, brash, very "Hollywood" retelling in which the nearest we get to satire is when Black topples backwards and squishes a Lilliputian in his butt-crack. There are some very mildly amusing moments in this film, but overall it is a regrettable example of the direction major American studio releases seem to be heading. That is to say: over-marketed, self-satisfied, bland nonsense, made with business in mind and not the art of film-making itself.

Mailroom slacker Lemuel Gulliver (Jack Black) works in a huge Manhattan editorial office. He spends most of his time quoting movies, playing Guitar Hero, and wishing that gorgeous hotshot travel editor Darcy Siverman (Amanda Peet) will notice him. One day, Gulliver realises that he has spent the best part of ten years doing nothing with his life… so to impress Darcy he takes on a minor assignment investigating strange goings-on in the Bermuda Triangle. During the trip, Gulliver's boat is caught up in a strange oceanic vortex and flung into a strange other-worldly kingdom known as Lilliput. Here the inhabitants are no bigger than insects and Gulliver appears as a fearsome giant. Soon he befriends the King (Billy Connolly), the Queen (Catherine Tate), the Princess (Emily Blunt), and an honourable prisoner (Jason Segel). But a slimy and untrustworthy military man, General Edward (Chris O'Dowd), refuses to buy Gulliver's tall stories and plots to rid the land of this new giant once and for all….

The fact that Jack Black is merely playing Dewey Finn from School Of Rock, and transposing the character to another film, is just the beginning of this film's problems. The overall acting talent wasted here is enough to make a grown man cry. Connolly fails to raise a single smile as the Lilliputian king, while Blunt (whose career so far has been refreshingly sure-footed) is reduced to the level of a ditsy bimbo. This will do her career no favours whatsoever. Segel, Peet and especially O'Dowd are all equally guilty of frittering away their talents in moronic roles. In terms of finding positive things to say about the film, at least the special effects are pretty good, and there are infrequent amusing moments (mainly references to other films, or sprinklings of toilet humour). Overall, though, that's about as positive as I can be. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of modernising Jonathan Swift's novel, but not if it's to be reduced to this level of cheap vulgarity and simple-minded storytelling.

Fun and silly

[vchimpanzee · 6 December 2017]

I've seen the version of the story starring Ted Danson, which was quite good. This is nothing like that.

Jack Black's Gulliver starts out in the real world of the present day, with a smart phone. That's all you really need to know about when this took place.

He's not happy with his life in the mail room, and he wants more. A relationship with travel writer Darcy, and more opportunities to do the real work of the New York Tribune.

The Internet makes things easy. When I was in high school and college, there was plagiarism, but it was more challenging because what we know today as the Internet didn't exist. Gulliver has an easy time impressing Darcy and gets sent to the Bermuda Triangle. Oh, so this is how it will work.

And it's actually a pretty exciting scene as Gulliver gets sent into another dimension. Then he has the experience that Danson had, only funnier. This version of the story, pretty much limited to Lilliput, will go for laughs.

And Lilliput is quite a complete nation, but with very small people compared to Gulliver. The castle where the royal family lives is huge. There is a city with lots of people, with varying ethnic backgrounds, and a countryside outside that city. And the Lilliputians have wars against other very small people from other nations.

Only after Gulliver shows his value in fighting a war is he treated with respect. He is a hero. And then things get quite silly. Every movie Gulliver has ever seen becomes a detail of his life, and pop culture references show up in abundance. We later see a giant R2D2 from "Star Wars", combined with "Transformers", used in battle, for example. All because Gulliver's plans for a video game become a fighting robot.

Meanwhile, the prisoner Horatio vies with the nasty Edward for the heart of Princess Mary. Horatio is released only because Gulliver is his friend.

There is one scene where Mary is kidnapped, and I'm not sure whether it is atrocious writing or atrocious acting. No, it's actually brilliant writing and good acting, because most of the acting in this movie is quite good. I mean for the material. It takes real effort to make the acting look really bad.

I am curious about one thing. Of course Gulliver loses cell phone service when he gets close to the Bermuda Triangle. How then is it possible he can receive the voice mails he missed--AFTER he crosses over? And these voice mails are quite important--if you think about it, there's an interesting plot twist coming.

The battle scenes are pretty impressive. I watch several CW super hero shows, and it's a lot like that. Even Horatio gets involved.

There is one cute scene in the world where everyone is big. It only has a little girl, who is quite big compared to Gulliver. Imagine what she would look like to Lilliputians.

And the movie has a big musical number which is quite well done. Again, it seems silly to have the entire cast performing a song Gulliver likes. Also, the music here is quite old compared to, say, a romantic comedy starring teenagers. It comes closer to what I like. Let's say that.

No, it doesn't rank as the most impressive of the productions based on the literary work. No, it is not literary work on its own. But it is enjoyable and somewhat well done. If you're the type of person who can enjoy Jack Black, you will probably like this.

Terrible adaptation of the classic tale

[gmacdon-986-39743 · 4/10 · 30 April 2014]

When I watched this movie I was expecting it to be very similar to the original story but modernised. However, it is a very odd adaptation of the classic tale (if it can be called that as there are practically no similarities at all from beginning to end). If you are planning on watching this film with the hope that it will resemble the classic even slightly, STAY AWAY. This film destroys the original story with it introducing all sorts of weird aspects to it that completely change the story line.

Jack Black plays Lemuel Gulliver in this movie but it is as if he is still Dewey Finn from 'School of Rock'. A better cast could have been brought in and that might have made up slightly for this movie flop. However, it is obvious that this film was not made to win lots of Oscars but made for family entertainment so I suppose it achieves something from being made. Overall this movie was a waste of money to make but could have been great if it had been properly thought out and had actually resembled the original tale. The special effects were quite good, though so families and younger children may enjoy it.

Worst film of 2010

[cybergel · 1/10 · 31 December 2010]

2010 marks the year that 20th Century Fox hits rock bottom. With this movie, if you can even call this a movie, Fox has become a degenerate studio catering to drooling imbeciles with any lack of taste for films in general.

Before I review this film in proper, let me list down Fox's 'achievements' for 2010: 1. John Davis. Enough said. This so-called 'uber-producer' who produces schlock for 20th Century Fox and its incumbent incompetent chairman, Tom Rothman, is no Jerry Bruckheimer or Brian Grazer. Look at his list of crap-fest. Garfield? Dr Dolittle? Marmaduke? Norbit? Daddy Day Camp? And now this? He must be the king of talking animal flicks and that includes Jack Black. Can someone please stop him from producing anymore nonsensical rubbish? 2. Tom Rothman. The man responsible for micromanaging and mismanaging every single Fox misfire this year. Stipulating all films to run under 2 hours? Prince Caspian was a masterpiece at 140 minutes and Dawn Treader sunk under its light weight at 110 minutes. Same goes for X3. Whatever happened to the 131 minute of a superhero epic we got for X2? Changing the title of 'Knight and Day'? And now a marketing executive takes the blame for the film's underwhelming box office returns? Real smooth, Tom, real smooth. Way to go for being a great helmsman in charge.

3. Every flick that 20th Century Fox put out somehow fizzled at the box office. A-Team, Knight and Day, Marmaduke, Wall Street, Percy Jackson. Not a good lineup considering that the studio is celebrating its 75th anniversary. Not one classic. In comparison, look at Paramount's 1987's lineup for its 75th Anniversary. The Untouchables, Planes Trains and Automobiles, Fatal Attraction, Beverly Hills Cop 2. Now, this is the way to go! I digress. Now back to Gulliver's Travels. The biggest problem with this flick is that everything about it is cringe-worthy. 'Gavatar'? 'Homages' to practically all successful Fox movies? This is pure shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement I have ever seen. If this is a contemporary update of Swift's classic novel, it has failed utterly and miserably.

Jack Black's ego is the problem here. He's still acting as a good-for-nothing slacker who plays rock music all day long. Basically, he's a momma's boy who has yet to grow up. Trying to play off his 'School of Rock' persona, I guess he wants to cater to the young. I mean, the breakout into the rock number at the end of the film, serves as an embarrassing reminder that Black needs to find an exit fast.

Emily Blunt is being reduced to nothing more than a pea-brained princess whose intelligence rivals that of Hugh Laurie's 'Prince mini-brain' in the Blackadder series. What a disappointing turn from a hugely talented actress.

Jason Segal is still holding on to a job? All in all, a really awful cinematic experience. Extremely forgettable. This film should be analysed in film classes or even in movie executive conference rooms as to how not to make a film.

Gosh, aren't we all being a little too serious in these reviews

[jools_69 · 7/10 · 9 March 2011]

Gulliver's Travels is fun, a fantasy, not taking itself seriously light comedy. You won't learn anything, you won't cry, you won't witness historic cinema in the making. You will spend an hour and a half watching an enjoyable family film that doesn't pretend to be anything more than a fun adaptation of an age old tale by Jonathan Swift.

I marked the film 7 because I enjoyed watching it, isn't that enough? Must everything be critiqued so much that we lose enchanting family films that just cheer us up momentarily.

Sometimes; Now this might upset the media studies students who seem to be taking over IMDb, sometimes I don't want to have to concentrate on plots and sub plots, sometimes I just want watch a film and escape for a bit, is that OK with you, must everything be Cannes fodder? If you want to have fun and watch a dumb romantic comedy watch Gulliver's Travels, if you're an over serious sneering sceptic... don't. It's that simple.

It's All Good...

[dilarasdad · 5/10 · 17 March 2011]

While some find this picture a waste of time, I think the problem lies in one's inability to open up and think 'What if?'. I found the picture entertaining. It's Jack Black doing what Jack does best - act like Jack Black.

Although the storyline could have taken a different twist and went a little more in depth, it was done well enough to capture an audience for a while.

One bit of overlooked trivia - Amanda Peet's character was named Darcy Silverman. She and Jack Black worked together in the past in a movie called- 'Saving Silverman'.

Regardless, it was not a bad day at the movies.

A good movie... sit back and enjoy.

[DiscGolfer · 7/10 · 2 May 2011]

I generally don't like to review a movie according to how close it is to the book... but I noticed that many of the negative reviews are comparing it to the book; so to answer those comparisons.

1. "The movie is rude and crude and a disgrace to the classic." I assume they have either not read the book or read some sanitized abridge children version of the book. Not only does the book contain the crude parts in the movie but the books is more crude and descriptive. The movie didn't add "potty humor" but took out most toilet humor from the book.

2. "The movie only had Gulliver rather than the many islands in the book." True. But the book had years between each adventure and would have been a lot to try to put into one movie.... besides the 2nd half of the book sucked (somewhat joking somewhat serious).

Anyway... reviewing the movie. It's a good movie but not great. They did a good job changing from the 18th century to modern times. If you are looking for a fun Jack Black movie you won't be disappointed. And this movie inspired a couple of my friends to even read the book.

If I could give negative points for this movie, I would!

[apaapa_micke · 1/10 · 12 February 2011]

This was, without any doubt, one of the worst movies I have seen in a very, very long time. Awful, to say the least. Jack Black is mocking everyone with an IQ over 50 with this movie. So if you consider yourself being dumber than... a monkey? an ant? Then go and watch this movie!

The plot is pathetic and extremely banal. A monkey could write a better plot given a typing machine, one hour and some bananas as reward. Do people even get paid for writing such a sh**ty plot?

I am truly disappointed with Jack Black. This movie had barely nothing to do with Gulliver's travels. Where was the satire? And did they have a robot and a lot of other advanced technological machinery in the real Gulliver's travels?

WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DESTROY THE GOOD NAME OF GULLIVER'S TRAVELS? WHY?

You do not have to mix everything together. Robots are great! Gulliver's travels is great! But them together with Jack Black... Awful! Completely disgusting!

Farcical Send Up Of Jonathan Swift's Political Novel

[johnstonjames · 8/10 · 10 June 2011]

who really knows what jonathan Swift would have thought of this. some of it is done in the spirit of his original story and it even includes the shocking urination part of Swift's book and the anti-war message that Swift inferred. basically this is mostly a irreverent and silly send up of a serious political allegory. how can you even look at Jack Black standing around in unkempt cargo shorts, tennis shoes and a t-shirt and take any of this seriously?

mostly this film was cute and had very little of Jack Black's trademark racy humor. this was sort of like 'school of rock' meets fairy tale Disney. certainly the modernized, irreverent adaptation that had little to do with the novel seemed typical Disney.

probably the best thing about this is Black. that's good enough for me. Black is the reason why i watch his movies in the first place and i usually find him entertaining. i was one of those rare persons who found 'Year one' funny. it's a added plus here that the movie has good FX and production values.

if there is any "real" message to be found here, besides the fact that JB is always cute, is the obvious one, inside every little guy is a great big giant of a man waiting to emerge.

this movie is certainly dedicated to the "little guy" everywhere. i'm also sure the author Swift would also like us to remember one of the main themes of his original story, "WAR! WHAT IZ IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!".

Enjoyable, but could have been great

[Joejoesan · 7/10 · 7 December 2010]

Ever since I saw the trailer I wanted to see Gulliver's Travels. I love Jack Black. I love Amanda Peet. I love the story. Turning Gulliver's Travels into a 3D movie seemed like an excellent idea… at first.

The story begins in New York. Jack Black – Star Wars and Guitar Hero geek - has been working for ten years in the mailroom of a big publishing company. He's secretly in love with an editor for travel stories (Amanda Peet) and applies for a writing job just to impress her. He gets it eventually by stealing text from an article from the Time Out website. Soon he heads for the Bermudas for his try-out assignment, writing about a man who knows the secret of the Bermuda Triangle. Jack almost dies in a big storm and ends up on a beach surrounded by mini people. Yes, Jack has arrived in Lilliput Land where he will become the hero who saves the land from a nearby evil kingdom. No spoiler there.

Jack Black is the guy you love to love. And as a fan you really hope that Gulliver's Travels is as good as the trailer promises. Unfortunately, it isn't. Although Jack must use his dick to stop a catastrophe (like in the original book)and he gets a tiny Lilliputian right in his arse, this actually is a family friendly movie. Too bad, I think, because the story that is presented is too safe to be satisfactory entertaining and is almost without any suspense or surprises. The best part is the opening credits. Here we see famous scenes from Manhattan filmed with a special camera lens so it all resembles a miniature city. It's an almost poetic beginning that is in firm contrast with the rest of the story, that seems chaotic and rushed.

When Jack arrives in Lilliput Land he does all the things you expect him to do. He starts out as a prisoner. Becomes the hero. Falls out of grace and leaves the Lilliput island, only to return and be the hero one more time by entering a Wild Wild West like confrontation. Some of the fun scenes with the tiny Lilliputians really work. The table-soccer scene for instance, as seen in the trailer. And there's also a nice scene in a theater that includes some funny spoofs on famous 20th Century Fox movies like Empire Strikes Back and Titanic. In Lilliput Land Jack makes his own Times Square, complete with posters from famous movies and musicals. Real funny.

The problem with Gulliver's Travels is that all the elements are there. The advantages of being a giant. The love story. The scene with the boats on a string. But why is the story so unimaginatively predictable? Just when things become interesting, a different problem should be solved by our hero. The story goes to the left, then to the right and could therefor use more scenes that prepare you for all the exciting things that are about to happen. Nice example of this is when Jack gets banned from Lilliput island. He's moved away by boat and arrives in a land not filled with tiny people but with very… well, you can do the maths. It all happens so sudden and his escape from this island goes even faster. No suspense here. And then the main love story. That Jack Black really fancies Amanda Peet, that I can understand. I also believe the fact that Amanda Peet thinks Jack Black is a real nice bloke. But that she's secretly in love with him as well… mmm, that wasn't convincing at all.

True. Gulliver's Travels wasn't made to earn Oscars. And in the end it's a nice family movie for the upcoming holidays. But with a better script, better editing, a less moralistic ending and a more outrageous Jack Black this could have been big. Now it's just another blockbuster special effects comedy that you will almost have forgotten the moment you leave the cinema.

A waste of time.

[mgould23 · 1/10 · 1 January 2011]

A great classic story ruined by the Hollywood egomaniacs. With hundreds of movies on television we made the mistake of venturing out on a horrible day to watch this new version of Gulliver. Well here's my review, I have just sat through this boring awful movie with my grandson and consider it was a complete waste of time and £20-00. There is nothing good I can say about this film. It goes to show that once again the usual holiday hype has worked and people are being hooked in to pay good money to watch rubbish.

It is sad that with all the money this movie must have cost to make, the final result has turned out to be so dismal. Jack Black is mediocre as Gulliver and unfortunately the rest of the cast look like they are working under duress for an appearance fee. The one exception is Chris O Dowd who stands out as the only redeeming thing in what has to be this year's Christmas turkey.

Action Figures

[tedg · 4 January 2011]

There is something brilliant about this project, something absolutely brilliant. You will find it hard to locate in the storm of distracting bad decisions elsewhere.

The bad? Well, you can read about that elsewhere. A cheap film factory and story meets the three Jack Black jokes.

The clever idea is this: Black plays a character who is a repressed nobody. In his own apartment, he acts out dramas from films with his collection of action figures. He goes to sleep, and dreams — maybe not because the fantasy doesn't need an explanation. He ends up in a land full of people the size of his action figures.

Once there, he tells them stories about himself drawn from all those movies, with him as the hero. They believe him of course. This is somewhat interesting. The brilliant part is how he inverts the inversion, by having the little people on stage reproducing scenes from the films with him as the hero. Later, they build him a replica of his real world as filtered through this lens.

The idea is pretty cool, and would have been worthy of something like "Synecdoche" and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

How this could have been spliced to Swift's original vision is too delicious. Swift was vulgar, offensive and unsettling in his truths. There is none of Swift here. I actually would have preferred seeing Travolta's Scientology disaster again rater than this. Cool idea though.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Gulliver uglified

[p-stepien · 2/10 · 18 January 2013]

With a career at its disappointing pinnacle Lemuel Gulliver (Jack Black) delivers mail in a publishing house, whilst secretly, if pretty obviously, obsessing about travel editor Darcy Silverman (Amanda Peet). A nervous mix-up has Jack telling tall tales about his great adventures, thus unwittingly applying for a post as travel writer - and getting it by copy pasting a perfect article. His first employ has him chugging off to the Bermuda triangle in search of a sunny story, instead finding himself whisked away by a whirlwind straight into the kingdom of Liliput. There he finds himself trapped by General Edward (Chris O'Dowd). His only comrade fellow inmate Horatio (Jason Segel), chained due to his unwise endearments towards Princess Mary (Emily Blunt).

Despite a somewhat promising cast, the intent to modernise the story has Gulliver's story transformed into a humourless self-parody with some crude or even mildly obscene jokes (surprising given its family friendly rating) forcibly making way for anything resembling narrative. The highlights of which is Black urinating on a fire or falling on his butt-cheeks with a Liliput inserting himself... you know where. As can be expected Jack Black (like him or forever leave him) returns to character as the endless man-child with some geeky back-story and limited wit. Therefore he seems entirely at home handing out some PG obscenity and molding remarks like 'Ship Happens'.

The story itself has been trivialised to MTV style fanfare with none of the social commentary of Jonathan Swift (however outdated it may have seemed given its 1726 context), instead supplanted with two woozy love interests and a multitude of over-the-top jesters (also guised in the form of kings and generals). The overall story has whittled down to the bare minimum of Liliputs and conflicting kingdoms, but apart from the that the connection is non-existent. Despite some expensive looking special effects quality is a non-ingredient, instead reaching to gutter levels for humour and placing all the weight of carrying the movie on Black's antics. Given Segel, Blunt and co fail to turn up, instead handing out a bland exaggerated ensemble performance "Gulliver's Travels" is essentially a pretty cringing experience.

There's nothing worth exploring in this traveller's tale

[moviexclusive · 4/10 · 22 December 2010]

It's the holiday season, and everyone around you in a festive mood – or are they?

Well, you may want to count this Scrooge of a reviewer out, because he isn't a firm believer that tis' the season of giving. So when a movie as shamelessly commercial as this comes along, you can bet he is not going to be very kind in his review.

Based on the 18th century novel of the same name, this update sees a slacker mailroom clerk being transported to the land of Lilliput (yes, this is the original name of the mythical land in the novel) after messing up a travel assignment to the Bermuda Triangle. There, the giant (or Beast, as he is affectionately known to the locals), he becomes a hero to the little people, fighting villains and matchmaking a peasant and a princess. When a battle with a petty general goes awry, the roly poly backs out and cowers in fear.

Of course, you know this is only temporary - who would be in the mood for an un-happy ending during the festive season?

The filmmakers have aptly cast Jack Black in the role of Gulliver, given his larger than life personality. This is clearly the comedian's show, seeing how the camera focuses on his every single exaggerated facial expression and body gesture. Black has impressed us with his comedic talents in movies like the surprise hit School of Rock (2003) and the hilarious satire Tropic Thunder (2008). And who can miss his adorable persona in Kung Fu Panda (2008)? In his latest work which he also plays the executive producer role, Black effortlessly pulls of the portrayal of a lovable loser who you cannot bear to dislike.

He is joined by a capable cast including Amanda Peet (2012) who plays his love interest, Jason Segel (I Love You, Man) who plays a Lilliput resident, Emily Blunt (The Wolfman) who plays a Lilliput princess and Billy Connolly (The X Files: I Want to Believe) who plays a Lilliput king. As you have noticed by now, most of the actors play tiny people in this 88 minute movie. They all fare pretty well, but like all holiday movies, this isn't really what the audience is looking out for.

What is in place is the usual numbed down and logic deprived script which will not bother the casual viewer. What's more, since this movie is targeted at the family crowds, there is no need to sophisticate things. Hence, the filmmakers have every reason to throw in mindless pop culture references, ranging from Star Wars' Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker to Titanic's Jack and Rose. Also, you get to see Gulliver inspired posters and billboards which are at most mildly amusing. Unfortunately, these litters of chuckles do not contribute much to the story.

Director Rob Letterman (Monsters vs Aliens) have made use of green screen technology, and in a move that doesn't surprise anyone anymore, 3D technique to bring this tale to the big screen. We are pretty sure that when Jonathan Swift wrote the original novel in 1726, the satire was supposed to bring out certain traits of human nature. After countless adaptations, this message has become a diluted affair with nothing refreshing to offer except a couple of pointless chuckles.

Oh God Help Us

[phantommusicworks · 1/10 · 15 December 2010]

100% CGI, green screened nonsense. The whole film was clearly shot in an office with green screens and a computer geek. There is absolutely NO talent in this film at all, either the production or the acting. This is the latest in a long line of steaming trash heaps. I mean, seriously, it cost tens of millions to make, but the one question I constantly ask myself is WHERE in the hell does the money go? I can pretty much do better with a Cellphone camera and Windows Movie Maker. I'm a HUGE fan of Gulliver's Travels of old, but this, oh boy, is the worst film I have ever seen. OK first, of all, am I the only guy in the planet who notices that Jack Black is only in really awful movies? OK I think that The Rock (of 'Tooth Fairy' fame) is the only guy on earth who can beat out Mr Black in terms of being a laughing stock. Save your money and time. 2 Thumbs WAY down. It's so bad it's actually good, if that even makes sense.

A Modernized Version of a Classical Novel

[aaronjbong · 7/10 · 24 December 2010]

Jack Black. Once we hear his name, we're familiar with it. His films are going to be comedic and bringing laughs to families with his acting and actions. He's just a person we truly love and as well is our hero for comedy films. After "Year One" last year, we are going to see him as a giant here, in 3D as Gulliver.

"Gulliver's Travels" is about a guy named Lemuel Gulliver who has a girlfriend named Darcy Silverman. After trying to impress her, Gulliver finds himself being asked to travel to the Bermuda Triangle to write a report of some islands after mistakingly through several foolish actions telling his girlfriend that he is a writer. While on trip,he gets hit by several disastrous things in the sea and finds himself in a place where he is considered a giant as the people living there are little tiny people.

Different from the original novel, this adaptations has many additions of course as it has been modernized. In the original novel, there's no girl or any modern things like a Coke can, GPS and other things. The novel has a Gulliver who is more serious other than Jack Black who takes things not seriously.

The comedy of this movie is better suited for an older audience. Yes, there are some jokes that suits for all ages. But, about 50% of them involve mature themes such as relationships which would be some sort of meaningless to young kids.

The 3D effects were a weak point in this film. Yes, it was in depth but, it lacks the benefits of 3D such as things coming out of the screen. Don't expect 3D effects as good as "Avatar" 'cause if you do, you'll be feeling disappointed.

Let's sum this up now.

"Gulliver's Travels" is perfect for families to spend their Christmas time. Oh yeah, don't forget you're going to see Scrat from "Ice Age" as he appears in a short called "Scrat's Continental Crack-up". The comedy in this film is great although some are more mature-themed. But, it's okay and the 3D is not really recommended but it's up to you to decide.

Overall, "Gulliver's Travels" earns a 7!

Thanks for reading my review on "Gulliver's Travels" and hope it's useful.

Waste of time

[yellowporpoise · 2/10 · 26 February 2011]

We've been to this movie today and it is a bad movie. My son (6) did not understand most of the "jokes" and my nine year old daughter said that this movie was ridiculous. So for whom was this movie made? For me as an adult it was way to cheesy, especially the end. Why do people write stuff like this and why do people invest money in such a terrible script? Waste of my money and waste of my time. Do not watch it. Beside the bad script, the acting was bad and the special effects reminded me of movies from the 80s. The only good thing about it was the music. So two stars for...? I have no idea. I am really disappointed. When my kids don't want to talk about the movie afterward, that is a bad sign.

Fun for the children, maybe not so good for adults

[blueheart-1 · 6/10 · 27 January 2011]

The strain is beginning to show on Hollywood as the publics insatiable appetite for films starts to take its toll. My children like to go to the cinema about once a week, and its a miracle that there are almost enough films for us not to have to see them twice. My heart sinks sometimes when I see the forthcoming attractions.

I was dreading taking my son to this shameless vehicle for Jack Black, the trailers made it look dire, but I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. We all know the Gulliver story, big guy, little people, and the love story was a bit of a yawn, but there were some laughs along the way, the supporting cast was excellent and somehow it skips along to the end without losing pace. Yes the plot was trite, the editing poor and there could have been more jokes. But, as my son pointed out, it was very clever how they made Gulliver big and the little people, well... small. He loved it!

Not the best film I've ever seen, but entertaining enough in its way. I just hope I don't have to go and see it again.

Tired performance, no laughs, lousy production.

[lousino-1 · 1/10 · 4 January 2011]

This movie COULD have been funny, but there are a few problems.

The first one is quite obvious: Jack Black. He can't seem to do anything anymore other than be 1/2 of Tenacious D. Increasingly, his performances are becoming idiotic and over the top, with the same tired mannerisms and behaviors. If you've seen a movie with Jack Black in it prior to this, then you've already seen his performance here. The director is partially to blame for this, and could have given him a chance to be something other than a moron.

There in lies the other major problem: there is no direction here. The audience should be hopeful for their protagonist, and even though it's a short part of the film before Gulliver arrives in Lilliput, there was plenty of opportunity to make you care about his plight, despite it being your typical "boy longs for girl" routine. But that doesn't happen here, instead it's just more of Black's aping around, playing his "lovable loser" bit.

These two issues ruin the film: a familiar plot with little effort to make it unique, while Jack Black runs around playing Jack Black. By the time the climax comes, you don't really care what happens. Of course, actors and directors can only do so much with what they've got... and with jokes like "President the Awesome" as a punch line, you can't really expect much.

The last issue that really detracted from the quality of the film was the production. The effects were so noticeably computer generated, that it took you out of the film, from the battle scene in the ocean, to the scenes where Jack Black is interacting with Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, et al.

The only positive of the film was Chris O'Dowd's performance, but unfortunately, it wasn't enough to save it from the bottom of the barrel.

Wonderfully cute - Not sure what the hate is about

[UniqueParticle · 8/10 · 7 October 2019]

Jack black is one of the greatest humans ever! I can't believe this has a 4.9 highly underrated, fun and very unique. Sure the acting isn't very good but not everything has to be serious does it? Maybe don't be so forlorn lol! Either way, if anything this movie is hilarious and I enjoyed it.

Meh...whatever

[mitcherator777 · 6/10 · 17 December 2011]

To be honest this movie started out being honest Jack Black Working in a mail room clerk named "Gulliver," if you want a silly little movie to waste your time for a couple hours I'd say watch this otherwise take your two hours and watch elsewhere. I'm sure this movie has nothing to do with the book "Gullivers Travels" Although I haven't read the book so I have no idea if it does or not I highly doubt it though. It's alright for a silly little movie to waste 2 hours with, but don't expect something great. It's OK but not that great.

There were some pretty funny moments in the movie, but this is one of those movies you watch once for kicks and giggles

Gulliver stomped on my expectations for this movie

[neenahhh · 2/10 · 3 April 2011]

I thought this would be a good flick, since I liked the original 'Gulliver's Travels' story and idea itself and I thought that a modern-day twist on this classic would turn out to be a good movie. So I was surprised to see the ratings that it had at IMDb. But after being one of this movie's viewers, I can say that this is one of the few IMDb movie ratings that are actually pretty accurate.

After watching this movie, I realized that the trailer of the movie actually gave pretty much everything away. It was like the 'Charlie St. Cloud' movie trailer! You can actually just watch the trailer and understand what the whole movie's about.

The actors weren't the main problem here. I thought Jack Black and Jason Segal were pretty average (or maybe I'm just biased since I actually like their other works). I don't get why they accepted roles for this poor excuse for a movie. The writing was terrible. I mean, the script was just bad. It was so poorly written. Many parts made no sense and seemed like they were just put in for some comic relief, but failed.

Do not watch this movie. I'm glad I didn't catch it in theaters. But even with the DVD viewing, I still felt cheated. If you've seen the trailer, don't bother wasting your time with the real thing.

Viewed on: April 1, 2011