Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

zardoz-13 The second feature-length animated film "Gulliver's Travels" gave Walt Disney something to think about after the Mouse House had released the first animated feature "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." The imagination and expertise that the Fleischer studios poured into this 76-minute Paramount release is almost as good as Disney's Dwarfs. Indeed, the night watchmen and several other characters resemble the dwarfs with their bulbous noses. This adolescent adaptation of Jonathan Swift's classic tale substitute slapstick for satire. The scenes where Gulliver grasps the anchor lines and drags the navy away are fantastic. The musical numbers, some of which received Oscar nominations, are worthy of a Disney. The weakness of "Gulliver's Travels" is its anemic characters. The beautifully roto-scoped Gulliver is a bland character while most of the supporting characters behave in a goofy manner. Not only are the characters weak, but also you don't care that much about them. The war between two small kingdoms about to be bound in wedlock is restrained until the latter half of the action. Gulliver spends a great deal of time out cold allowing the natives to lash him down fast. Animation addicts who haven't seen "Gulliver's Travels" are missing a real treatment.

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'.

craigclay No, this isn't Madagascar, Lion King or Shrek. Not even Peter Pan or Cinderella but this film demands the respect of something created in 1939. That's right '39! Not 1989, 1979 or even '69. I'm amazed and the amount of effort that must have gone into this animation.I'm curious to know if Gulliver is rotoscoped. The little people are obviously traditional animation but there is definitely something different about Gulliver.For an excellent verion of Gullivers Travels including all of his travels (not just Lilliput) catch the made for TV version starring Ted Danson.

colby-sites Have you ever watched a cartoon you used to watch a long time ago? Like watching the 1940's Superman today, Gulliver's Travels from 1939 leaves viewers of today not only feeling nostalgic, but like it was a good movie by the standards of today. True, tastes in movies change with time, but true classics never die.The animation style of Gulliver is simple and the story straightforward. It starts with Gulliver being shipwrecked onto an island full of tiny people, about the size of ants. One nation's princess is getting married to another nation's prince, and the kings are planning the wedding. When it comes down to the wedding song, both kings suggest their own songs and have a fight about it. They end up going to war over it, but before the war can start, Gulliver is found and captured by the tiny people. He escapes and becomes allies with the people of Lilliput, the nation with the princess. The rival king has sent spies to Lilliput and asks them to kill Gulliver. The movie progresses with the countries warring and Gulliver trapped in the middle. Gulliver reunites the prince and princess and is about to put a stop to the war when the spies pull his own pistol on him. The prince hops on his horse and knocks the gun off just in time, but falls down a cliff in doing so. Gulliver picks up the boy and tells the kings how stupid they've been, fighting over a song, and that the prince is dead. In the end, the prince turns out to be alive and sings his country's song with the princess singing her country's song. Gulliver gets a new ship and is on his way. All is well.The most striking thing a viewer will notice in the movie is the differences between characters. The smarter, most knowledgeable and reasonable characters like Gulliver, the prince and princess all are animated to look lifelike, whereas the villagers, spies and kings all have a sort of dwarfish, cartoon style about them. This puts a visual line in the sand between the characters that becomes more and more obvious as the movie goes on. The kings are acting foolish and the people from the village are acting on their behalf. The spies and Gabby, the man who finds Gulliver all have the most cartoonish movements and are the most comic-relief type characters. The animation style provides for a visual representation of the character's personality, subtly hinting that real people should be more reasonable and intelligent, lest they look like the dwarfish, ignorant people.Another element that draws attention to itself is the repetition of Gulliver's line "Oh my." Oddly enough, he only says it at times where the plot is thickening, such as when the prince comes back for the princess. He doesn't seem to find it odd that people not much bigger than ants are clothing him and dancing for him for no reason other than he's a giant to them. This may be surprising, but considering Gulliver's character, it could just be a part of his kind-hearted nature. This distinction between "Oh my" being something surprising, and Gulliver's "Oh my" meaning something is about to happen, becomes more concrete as the movie goes on. Thus, when an "Oh my" is heard from Gulliver, the audience knows it should pay attention to this point in the plot, as it is important to the overall storyline.The most notable animation achievement is the realism behind Gulliver. Nowadays, amazing things can be done with 3D animation, making characters look more realistic, but for some reason, they still have an unnatural feel to them. This comes down to the motion of the characters, which this movie nailed with Gulliver. His movements look like that of a human being, jerky at times, possibly slow, but always realistic in those flaws. Nobody moves swiftly across the floor with little bounce, or keep steady, fluid motion, and this lack of fluidity is captured in Gulliver. Good examples of this include when Gulliver steps over the town and during the first shipwreck scene. Before he steps over the buildings, he pauses slightly as if to gain balance and keep going. This slight pause is what separates him from the CGI of today. When Gulliver's ships wrecks and he's drowning, his head comes above water a few times, but his arms are seen flailing, wildly, but with purpose, as if in an attempt to get air. Their movement is almost random, but meaningful. This level of realism within Gulliver is still astounding today, almost seventy years after the film's production.The director Dave Fleischer has something to do with this animation style. At that time, he was a great director of many cartoons, most notably Popeye. Gulliver had a huge step toward realism and it continued on in Fleischer's work. A few years later, he went on to direct the Superman cartoons, which are still held in high acclaim for their animation style and techniques of realistic movements and absorbing story lines.Though this movie may have been forgotten by many, its animation style, subtle repetition of elements and straightforward storyline all lend to this movie's timelessness. Normally, people look to the future for the latest and greatest, but Gulliver is a shining example of what the past can teach the future.