IMDb > Gulliver's Travels (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Gulliver's Travels
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Gulliver's Travels More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 12: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 115 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Setting classic stories in a modern environment doesn't always work

Author: yasenkiranov from Bulgaria
6 October 2012

As a kid I read the original book "Gulliver's travels".Back then I didn't know it was actually a political critique,but I was still very entertained reading it.Later I watched the 1996 movie and kinda liked it too.Then we have this.This half-assed mockery,that doesn't deserve to be called "Gulliver's travels".I would like to point out,that I'm not a fan of movies that take a classic story and put it in a modern setting.For me they are rarely entertaining and consist mainly of stupid pop- cultural references and dull jokes.This is probably one of the worst movies of it's type.The only thing this pile of garbage has to do with "Gulliver's travels" is that the main character's name is Gulliver(not that he has anything to do with the Gulliver we know) and the existence of Lilliput.The land of the giants is almost completely dismissed(it literally appears for 5 minutes).The Country of the Houyhnhnms is not mentioned at all.Add to all of that a lot of dull humor and you can guess how bad this movie is.The only reason I am giving this piece of crap 2 stars is because at some moments,and believe me,there's not a lot of them,the humor was at least decent.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Giant Sized Kick in the Cojones

Author: anthony-rigoni from United States
15 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

That's what this movie is like: only longer and more painful. If I were Jack Black(Known for played Po from Kung Fu Panda), I would've said "No" to the people who asked me if I want to star in this movie. You're all familiar with Gulliver's Travels, the book written by Jonathon Swift? Well... This movie, as you can see, is NOT like the book at all! So, I'll sing the whole review to the tune of Gilligan's Island Theme Song.

Just sit right back and you'll see a film that stinks like a poo. I think that this movie is going to suck a lot, don't you? Jack Black stars a travel writer, but he looks like a loser. He's assigned to take a trip to the island of Bermuda, of Bermuda. The weather started rough and the ship has gone kaput. And Gulliver is a castaway on the island of Lilliput.

The jokes and special effects make me puke and the characters make me cry like Gulliver; Horatio too; the Princess and her dad; The General and a Transformers ripoff in Gulliver's Travels!

And that's how I can sum up of how bad this movie is. If I were you, I'd stick to the book and the classic 1939 animated version because they were better than this giant sized piece of orangutan diarrhea.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A shame

Author: Lomedin
16 May 2012

I like Jack Black, let's start with that statement.

This movie is terrible. Let's continue from here. This adaptation of Gulliver's travels is the equivalent of trying to compare Don Quijote De La Mancha to the fast and the furious. OK, maybe I'm being cryptic. I'll elaborate: when you take a classic full of useful social critic, of a vision of humanity as it is -a hypocritical destructive force-, full of things to learn, and modernize it into some sort of shallow, "cool" spawn which only similarities with the original are the title and a couple of scenes... well, you get this, this... thing.

I don't see the point of this movie ever been created and I find it an insult to the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A dumb reinterpretation of Swift's novel

Author: tieman64 from United Kingdom
20 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why take Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", a novel by one of literature's great satirists, and eradicate all satire?

Swift's novel essentially plunged an adventurer called Gulliver into four different societies, be they utopian, dystopian, or hybrids of the two. Gulliver learnt lessons in each, spotted various failings in each, and then returned to his own land. Upon seeing his family for the first time in five years, he muses: "the sight of these odious beasts filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt." Gulliver then withdraws to a life of isolation. In other words, one of the novel's points was that the hero missed the point of his own travels, lacking, like those he encountered, the will to make a mere effort to change himself, no less the society in which he lives. It is not only that Gulliver grew to view human nature as being long beyond the point of correction, but that Swift recognised that apathy is the first step in man's nature being deemed fixed.

"Gulliver's Travels", directed by Rob Letterman and starring comedian Jack Black, might be said to embody apathy wholesale. When it's not mercilessly raping Swift, the film pauses only long enough to tell us not to lie, because when we don't we get lots of money and hot babes.

Beyond this the film's "fantasy lands" serve only as mind-screens for Jack Black - a "writer and film buff" within the film - to project his desires. Tiny people then act out his fantasies like mini actors or micro-peons. Black then learns, like a failed dictator, not to force his will (ie imagination) onto others. Once he learns this, he gets everything he wished for anyway. Cue credits.

2/10 – Black was funny in "High Fidelity", "School of Rock" and "Nacho Libre", but continues to be unwatchable in almost everything else he touches. Worth no viewings.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The cheesiness will kill you

Author: ericzillazillo from Hong Kong
2 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hey kids! Do you like dairy products? Yes? Then I know the perfect product for you! Jack Black in the newest interpretation of Gulliver's Travels has everything you would want in a cheesy kids movie that would annoy the hell out of anyone that has a triple digit IQ! Amazing stunts accompanied by the peak of technological wonders, Gulliver's Travels tells the tale of a fat man "acting" as himself and being the all American poor-ass funky dancing singing crazy partying stereotype that you will inevitably grow up to be! Integrated with the cliché of the ignorant liberalistic peace theme, the "screw-conscious-and-let's-go-rebel- against-the-system-and-hit-on-somebody-else's-girl" theme and your extremely romantic (sarcasm) obvious "get-the-courage-to-ask-her-out" theme, this film is great entertainment for all minors aged seven to twelve. Although with an extremely unrealistic plot of the chick falling for the dude way too quickly and tiny 17th century people being able to build futuristic robots and some unhealthily fat guy being able to overpower the futuristic robot, and let's not forget the unequal constant bully-disgracing of the poor guy Edward who by the way, had every right to hold on to traditions (leading to him becoming a villain), this film is still your number one choice in modern slapstick humor! But wait, here's the scary part- you get to witness a dude kissing a dude-doll, and the unsettling scene of dead pilot skeletons! Of course, if you do not mind the cheesy dancing at the end of the film, then watch now! Even better, watch the film, which does not have a single "roller-coaster scene", in 3D!

Nahhh... this film sucks. I pity any parent that has to sit through the whole thing with his/her child.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Funny but lacking in imagination

Author: Chrysanthepop from Fraggle Rock
23 May 2011

An adaptation of Swift's novel (which was one of my favourites when I was a child) that stars Jack Black and Amanda Peet! Wasn't going to miss this one. I have heard negative things about this movie so my expectations were low. Given that the book leaves plenty of room for imagination, I felt the movie lacked that. Much of it is contrived and there are plenty of plot holes. For example, the writers could have done a lot with the idea that Gulliver was banished to a forbidden land (of giants). Even the culture clash between modern day Gulliver and the Lilliputians felt forced and half-baked. How did these Lilliputians develop technology (that took hundred of years for humans) so rapidly. Was Gulliver, a guy who works at the mail, really that savvy? But anyway, the movie partially compensates its lack of substance and imagination with humour. Jack Black is always dependable when it comes to making the audience laugh. Amanda Peet has a small role but she makes the best of it and has good chemistry with Black. Jason Segel and Emily Blunt are adequate in non-demanding roles. Catherine Tate is wasted. Chris O'Dowd is passable as the traitor villain.

Needless to say, this is far from a great adaptation but thanks to Black, there was enough to laugh at. I suggest to keep expectations low.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Read The Book

Author: Josh Hadley (MooseNugget) from Kotzebue, Alaska
25 April 2011

I seen the previews for this movie and I made up my mind that I wasn't going to view it. I was sucked into seeing this film when my friend rented it and convinced me to we needed to watch it before returning it. In hindsight this was a mistake.

In high school I read Gulliver's Travels. This film is very different from the book, being set in modern time rather then when the book was written was the least of the problems I had with this film.

The major grip I had with this film was that it's like those parody films today like Meet The Spartans and Disaster Movie. Gulliver's Travels loosely follows the book while adding a lot of silliness. There were a few laughs I had during the film but overall it wasn't a good experience.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I hope you disagree with this

Author: chrishc from Wales UK
15 April 2011

Sometimes, I want to just disregard films that are rubbish, but this I can't. The positive outcome of this film is that I now hate everyone in it. If you ate a poisonous fish and you shat blood all over your dying carcass - you would still have more fun, and an enjoyable time than watching this film. Unless....unless you are a brain dead retarded twunt. Letterman - whatever his name is - everything he has made is pathetic crap, so this is the last time I will ever watch anything associated with him, as writer, producer whatever. Well done. Hurray! Right, how can I create a lengthier commentary which elongates its discussion of a piece of poo? Well, poo is often considered to be one sided, but the actuality of anal production analysis is something completely different. How much of it could you swallow? If you're suspecting a limit of two tonnes then you'd be completely wrong. But also fantastically right. Etc.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Average Day Movie, Shorty Duration

Author: ghasl1 from Canada
13 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is not too bad but it lacked time duration, script and the other scenarios by that I mean the movie didn't seem to go for that long it felt as if the movie finished too quickly and was only based on the little people of Lilliput. Why they chose one adventure is just meager.

There was some funny moments with the little people and Jack Black fighting against a giant robot manned by a little person who hates him. Other than that there was not that much in the movie. They could of done the giants in contrast to Gulliver but they only did him in a girl's dollhouse. They left out the Giants, Floating worlds and the talking horses adventure they could of done so much parodies off of those and fill in for the short time. It had potential but I was disappointed that it was already over felt like rush hour 3. See it as a rental not as a movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Jumbo-Sized Slacker In King Arthur's Court

Author: D_Burke from United States
12 January 2011

I like Jack Black a lot. He's an A-list comic actor who really deserves to be on the A-list. When his comic talents are used correctly, like in "High Fidelity" (2000) or "School of Rock" (2003), he is brilliant in movies. When he is underused, like in "The NeverEnding Story 3" (1994) or "Tropic Thunder" (2008), it shows. In "Gulliver's Travels", Black succeeds in being funny. However, I had two big problems with this movie.

First, the heralded 3D technology which accompanies most screenings of the film is not especially impressive and seems underutilized. Some big budget 3D movies of recent years have tried a bit too hard to make their 3D effects come out at you, whereas "Gulliver's Travels" doesn't seem to try at all. Black is larger than the people and buildings on the island of Lilliput, but there aren't any other special effects that merited 3D glasses. When I paid $15.50 to see it, I felt ashamed because I could have paid that much to own it on DVD.

Second, the movie, despite being called "Gulliver's Travels", bears little resemblance to Jonathan Swift's novel other than the fact that the protagonist is named Lemuel Gulliver and he finds himself shipwrecked on an island where he is a giant amongst its people. If any 18th Century novel should be made into an epic film that does justice to it, it should be Swift's novel, and the title of this movie is therefore a bit deceiving. Just as last year's "Alice In Wonderland" (2010) had the major characters acting out a story that Lewis Carroll never came close to writing, I was let down a bit by the fact that screenwriters Joe Stillman (who co-wrote the first two "Shrek" movies) and Nicholas Stoller (writer of "Get Him To The Greek" (2010) & "Yes Man" (2008)) just made a conventional comedy that may as well be called "Gulliver's Travels IN NAME ONLY".

In this version, Gulliver is an unambitious mailroom clerk working for the New York Tribune (I love fictional newspapers in movies) who has a crush on travel writer and editor Darcy Silverman (Amanda Peet). Afraid to ask her out, he instead takes a travel assignment to the Bermuda Triangle in hopes of writing an article that will both impress her and have him move up in the newspaper.

Soon enough, he is caught up in a storm that washes him ashore the island of Lilliput, inhabited by people the size of his thumb who also act and live as if they are in the middle ages. Considering the reputation of the Bermuda Triangle, it would make sense that there be an island somewhere within containing inhabitants without any connection to the outside world. The premise is a bit more like Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court", but with Jack Black, it's still funny.

I also liked some of the subplots involving the Lilliput inhabitants. You could tell right away that General Edward (Chris O'Dowd) would be the primary antagonist the minute you see him on screen, but O'Dowd was brilliantly over the top. I had to laugh when Black convinces him that the term "lame ass" is synonymous with "valiant".

I also thought that the love story between humble peasant Horatio (Jason Segel) and beautiful Princess Mary (Emily Blunt) was sweet and genuine. I laughed when Gulliver convinces Horatio to woo the princess using words from the Prince song "Kiss". Prince must have found it funny too, considering how controlling he usually is of his music rights.

However, for a movie with a reported budget of $112 million, there were many inconsistencies. For instance, Gulliver goes from being tied up on the beach to tied up on a stretcher before King Benjamin (Billy Connolly) to having his hands and legs shackled onto a dungeon wall, all without any explanation of how these little people managed to get him there. Plus, Black seems strong enough to break through such chains.

Additionally, there's a part where enemies from a neighboring island attempt to kidnap Princess Mary. Black asks himself out loud, "Why is she just standing there?" I asked myself the same question, and never got an answer. Furthermore, while Blunt is normally a great actress, her acting in this particular scene seemed unusually rigid.

Another way that this film bears little resemblance to the novel it takes its name from is that Gulliver in this movie spends most of his time with the island of little people, whereas there is another island full of giants in the book. In this movie, not only does Black spend five minutes on this island, but it contains a few scenes that were kind of creepy. One involves a dead fighter pilot, and made me wonder how the MPAA missed that part when they rated this film PG.

This movie is not the Jonathan Swift book, and if you miss it in 3D, you're not missing much. Because Jack Black is Jack Black, I laughed, but the special effects were nothing new. Your best bet, if 2D is not an option at your local theater, is renting it, and saving $10 or more.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 12: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history