Gulliver's Travels

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.