Critic Reviews

33

Metascore

Based on 32 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
75
It's all sweet and very, very silly. I was surprised by the subtleties - both comedic and thematic.
75
You may be imagining this is an animated film, and that Jack Black is voicing Lemuel Gulliver. Not at all. This is live action, and despite the 3-D, it's sorta old-fashioned, not that that's a bad thing.
75
Black was already the world's biggest little kid, and he might be the only actor who could have made this movie such nimble fun.
50
Yet another foray into unnecessary 3-D, is a rehashed mishmash of Jonathan Swift's 18th-century classic. Mostly, it's a vehicle for Jack Black's zany humor.
50
It's not bad. It's cute.
50
The cast gamely tries to keep up, with the scene-stealing O'Dowd making the strongest impression. Still, it all feels so lazy and familiar that adults may find themselves hoping Black will start to challenge himself again - and the more swiftly the better.
42
Entertainment Weekly
Strips the source material down to its recognizable parts and then builds something completely new out of them. Unfortunately, the result is entirely Lilliputian in ambition, even for a children's movie.
40
While not the worst in recent 3D films, Gulliver's Travels is more gimmicky than a crackling good yarn.
38
Murderously unfunny.
25
At one point, Black puts out a fire by pissing on it. It's my job as a critic to piss on this dumb excuse for a movie. Consider it done.
0
The 3-D is cheesy (2.2-D at best) the gags are gross (Gulliver urinates on an 18th-century palace to extinguish a fire) and the production abandons all hope of coherence when the hero fights a climactic battle with a giant robot out of "Transformers."

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for Gulliver's Travels (2010) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews | Message Board