Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

MonsterPerfect Good idea lost in the noise

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Blueghost When I saw this movie first air I was captivated by the visuals and tale of Gulliver's actual travels. The one thing I really didn't get, and has always perplexed me, was the subplot about Gulliver returning as a nut case, afflicted with some form of shock or psychosis. I just didn't get it.And even watching it now, I still don't understand why Ted Dansen's character was turned into a raving lunatic as a narrative construct. It could have worked without this extraneous element. But, I better get to reviewing the film.The art direction of this Halmark production are unsurpassed. The SFX for the time were state of the art. We're with Gulliver and see his viewpoint as he interacts with tiny people, giants, kings, queens, intelligent animals and people who think they're intelligent but are blinded by their own intellect. Each social group he comes across is a commentary on human nature, and Dansen's character regales his caretakers with stories of his travels from which the commentary comes forth.As usual with Hallmark, little expense is spared to create a visual tapestry of 19th century England the strange continent to which Gulliver has travelled, and subsequently returned. Costumes, sets, locations, even the acting talent, is all of the first caliber for this very lavish production. Liberties are taken with the tale, as with all adaptations to the visual media from written work. Even so, it is a remarkable piece of work. The mental health theme is, to my way of thinking, very labored and doesn't add to the story, though it does seem to serve a purpose in bringing a romantic struggle to the original tale. Therefore the drama that might have been has been infused with a heightened sense of imperativeness, as we witness Gulliver struggle with his recent past. Does it work? It certainly brings an element of Gulliver questioning his social reality in England, but is, in my opinion, melodramatic, and just plain stupid. The social commentary could have just as easily been told without this aspect. We could have seen Gulliver come home, setup shop, be welcomed, and then tell of his adventures to people visiting his practice. But, it was not to be, and as I watched this very lush production, I kept asking myself why Hallmark approved of such a skewed tale. But, all we can do is shrug our shoulders, and accept the final product. Still, would it have hurt to have a normal narrative?All in all it is an impressive retelling of the classic tale, and all the social commentary is there, if not in point of fact made explicit to the viewing audience.Enjoy it for what it is.

abunudnik Cultural Vandalism Is the new Hallmark production of Gulliver's Travels an act of cultural vandalism? Not literally. After all, not a single copy of the book is burned. But if this is the only Gulliver people are exposed to—and to many it will be—those people will not get anything like what Jonathan Swift intended. Were Jonathan Swift alive, Hallmark could be sued for moral rights violations and they'd lose. That's a good way to think before starting a project using someone else's ideas.Swift's masterpiece is an extraordinary vision of humanity. Through his hero, Gulliver, he travels to places that make him feel big, small, shat on and… human. The little people in Lilleput are small in every way. Petty and stupid, they fight, the big-enders and little- enders, interminable wars of annihilation over which end of their soft-boiled eggs are opened at the breakfast table. Sounds a bit like us.I forget most of the rest: it's been years since I read it. The TV show reminded me of a few things and, on the bright side, it made me want to read it again.This gift to mankind has been shat on, like Gulligan under the boughs beneath the vulgar yahoos, and Danson, Steenbergen and especially two great actors, Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox, ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Some "Creative Person" got the bright idea to put the focus on "the star:" Gulliver, played by Ted Danson, whose acting is just plain bad. He portrays Gulliver as insane. All his travels were made up. Weeeeel. Yeeeaaah! Of course Swift made up Gulliver! Naturally, the lands he visited were imaginary: that's called fiction. His purpose was to talk about humankind and our, often awful, relations with each other. The travels of his imaginary character to imaginary lands is his method. But these people treat imagination as a disease and anyone who has a moment that Hallmark couldn't turn into one of its anodyne cards is suspect.I can sure see why Hallmark would produce this crap. It's so bad that O'Toole, always profound, seems as little as his Lilliputian character. He's in character, of course, while commenting on the character simultaneously, as many, if not all great actors do. Informing the character sheds light on it. Our light completes the character. It becomes three dimensional through this act of psychic triangulation. Most actors do this very subtly, like Hopkins in "The Remains of the Day." Others, like Nicholson, in most things in the last twenty years, play the two parts pretty broadly apart. Nicholson actually plays on the relationship of his two points and with us too: with him it's all cat's cradle and he, chuckling away, holds all the strings. Great fun, as is O'Toole. But something here is lacking. He is shouting into a megaphone (as great as ever) and all one senses is a hollow shell standing under him.That's because it is. Look up "anodyne" and there ought to be the word "Hallmark" as a synonym. Harmless, bland, inoffensive: Hallmark is the doll who can't pee because she has no genitals: it is the norm, the average, the person of no distinction. Hallmark's hallmark is to have no hallmark. I never suspected that such people despise those who have imagination quite so much. Suddenly, Pound's "Disney against the meta-physicals" stands out in bold type. Or Einstein's "Men of genius always will be violently opposed by mediocre minds." Indeed, anyone, to this mediocre type, who has an answer to any question other than "a)" or "b)" is suspect. Who more distinctive then that a man who journeys to the darker places of the human soul and shines his little flashlight to illuminate what can be found there? Hence the act of vandalism. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Palestinians the oldest synagogue in the world at Jericho, the barbarians the great statuary of the Classical age and these things are obviously vandalism. Hallmark endeavors to protect us from foreign foes by undermining our own culture; the one that feeds and sustains them. And us.Please buy a copy of Gulliver's Travels wherever you live, and read it. Or order it online. I like to use ABE Books.

Nicholas Rhodes Just discovered this one on DVD in the UK and promptly bought it !! Pretty meaty stuff and rather long, clocking in at almost three hours ! Obviously then requires several viewings to take it all in but my first impressions were generally positive. I didn't like the over-frequent to-ing and fro-ing between the present and the past without warning - it's rather tiring on the spectator's brain and if you don't follow the thing carefully you can get rather lost ! That was my main negative point, plus the fact that certain sections were rather slow and chatty. Apart from that, my impressions were mainly on the positive side rather than the negative.I had not heard of the actor Ted Danson before but he puts in a fine performance as does the quintessentially beautiful Mary Steenburgen (whom I've known since 'Time After Time') as his wife. I also noticed other faces, not least those of Victor Meldrew and Rodney Trotter from Only Fools and Horses which made me laugh no end.Technically the special effects were EXCELLENT and there was also quite a lot of humour throughout. I most most amused and intrigued by the talking horses/Yahoos as I did not know this aspect of Gulliver's travels. You could be forgiven for thinking that the protagonist had been taking too much LSD and and gone on another kind of trip !!Overall then, worth acquiring on DVD, above all for the picture quality plus the fact that several viewings are necessary.

craziersaiyan I first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland.