Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Lee Eisenberg First, I should note that I've never read Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels". I understand that it's a satire on human nature and society. With that in mind, it's clear that Fleischer Studios' animated movie version is on a loose adaptation (specifically, of one part of the novel). It's got a lot of the typical stuff that 1930s cartoons contained, which is both a blessing (classic animation and a lot of physical humor) and a curse (over-the-top singing). In the end, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. I figure that they had fun making it. And damned if that princess isn't a babe!I hope to eventually read the novel, especially since the most famous scene has gotten depicted numerous times (including in Sam Raimi's "Army of Darkness", the conclusion of his Evil Dead trilogy). In the meantime, this is my only exposure to it. I've recently been trying to see as many classic movies nominated for Oscars as possible (this one got nods for Original Score and Original Song, losing both to "The Wizard of Oz").In conclusion, does anyone have a pain in their gulliver? (props to "A Clockwork Orange")

Angels_Review This is an old classic movie I grew up watching. There is a little bit of nostalgia about this show and the comedic way they play some of the characters. Seriously, how they make some of them feels a lot like a joke on society. A war starting just because of a song that would be played at a lovely little wedding. It seems similar to why friends may bicker about little things and then not talk to each other for a rather long time. Anyway, back to the review. The comedy is really slap stick with characters getting hurt or having exaggerated expressions as their main gimmick. In other parts of the show, they tug at your heart and in some cases, we even see what is going through Gulliver's mind and his homesickness.The artwork is rather pretty (Comparing it to other shows around this time) and each character moves smoothly and consistently. It's interesting how much detail they placed on Gulliver and how really simple the little people are. Most little people look rather fat and/or out of proportion except for the princess and prince. Well, them and Gulliver. Colors are rather saturated and yet you can see pretty much everything. I say it's close to the old version of Disney's movies. Now Gulliver seems like a really cheerful man and is always smiling or having an over exaggerated movement to show his pleasure or feelings. It feels odd but I believe that is what they were actually going for.The voices are classic fun with Pinto Colvig (Who was the voice of the original Goofy and Grumpy from 'Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs') playing Gabby, Jessica Dragonette (famous singer) playing Princess Glory, and Sam Parker as Gulliver. I'm not really sure about Sam Parker's play on Gulliver thought because he seems to be rather bland of a character. Nothing seems to startle him as he wakes up to find tiny men all around him and a war starting up. When someone or something surprises him, all he really says is 'My My…' and leaves it at that.So what do I like about this show? Well, it's not as stupid as many of the new stuff and is rather nostalgic for me even with its faults. Even if you don't really like animated shows, you should really take a look at this one. If you do like animated shows, its something I consider part of history.

Cristi_Ciopron Fleischer's Gulliver might be the cartoon I have enjoyed most in my life; not only a masterpiece of the Fleischers—but of the old cartoons, as well. It ain't for nothing that Fleischer is still so highly regarded. So let us try, for our readers' sake, to give a balanced account of the accomplishments and faults of this flick. This schmaltzy cartoon made by the Fleischer team (well, produced by one and directed by the other) 72 yrs ago is very loosely based on Lemuel Gulliver's storyline; we're plunged directly into schmaltz and dire triteness—a dwarf from Snow—White and a marriage—the hallmark of nicety and prettiness, plus a lot of harmless romance, the epitome of blandness, a Gulliver operetta—which is fine, if that's what you wish to settle for. Otherwise, yeah, the kitsch is thick enough to be enjoyable—to be more than palatable. The craftsmanship is impressive. This might be—what—the 4th cartoon I'm reviewing for IMDb (a Japanese one—a parable—a Hänsel …--you see, not all of it was garbage, not all of it …--that parable looked a tiny bit under—populated and even under—drawn …); what can I say, Fleischer as a cartoonist is kitsch enough, is schmaltz enough—even the gist of schmaltz. Basically, the same bland, tame buffoonery, because here the team has to supply for everything and, though done with undeniable, commendable craftsmanship, 'Gulliver' amounts to a roller-coaster of gags and niceties—which is way less than the required. The nuisance is, even apart from the couple of singing lovers, Gulliver himself, cast here as a simpleton and a soft-head. Lemuel Gulliver cast as the blandest, amidst the colorful dwarfs. So, yeah, a bit of a 'Snow—White' rip—off, instead of the cunning midgets of the original. Despite the prettiness and the dreadfully unlikable arias bellowed by the characters, Fleischer's Gulliver looks like an ancestor of the Spielberg/ Lucas flicks—it's all an American fashion—a clownish roller-coaster, as already described by the underwritten reviewer. Anyway, I took a little, unexceptionable pleasure in charming and lulling you with my prose …. (2) But then again, 'Gulliver' as retold by the Fleischers is an eminently likable yarn. So, it is simultaneously lurid, enjoyable, and bland, tame, schmaltzy, derisory, petty. Bland schmaltz. But then again—concomitantly lurid and tame, quite disconcerting; it will be enjoyed presumably more by the kiddies, which is only well, given that the adults' craze for cartoons is rather uncanny. Almost no relations whatsoever to the womanizing (or, possibly just repressed) Irish clergyman's original writings—yeah, but what a fairy tale! Gulliver suggests a fellow who can be gulled; and we also remember the surgeon from the Jack Ripper tale—the surgeon Gull, see 'From Hell'.

Neil Welch The Fleischer studios followed Disney into the uncharted waters of feature length cartoons with this adaptation of Gulliver's adventures in Lilliput.It is colourful, charming, respectful, and gentle. The moral of the original shines through.The animation is perhaps of the same standard as Disney's shorts and, maybe, falls short of the heights achieved during Snow White (there is some obvious reliance on certain movement cycles, something you often saw in Disney's shorts of the time but less so in features).The comic relief elements may seem out of place, or they may appeal - this is a matter of taste. They are fine for kids.I personally felt that the rotoscoped Gulliver contrasted a bit too much with the hand animated Lilliputians, but that shouldn't be taken as a criticism - this is a pioneering film, and a good one.