I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Truly Dreadful Film

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

HOT ON THE heels of Walt Disney's SNOW WHITE & THE 7 DWARFS, Disney competitor, Max Fleischer and his distributor, Paramount Pictres (who released the Fleischer Brothers Studio product), were eager to enter the new field of the full length animated feature film. SNOW WHITE had outperformed the predictions of all. Rather than causing nausea and dizziness to viewers (as was predicted about such lengthy a dose of "cartoons"), the only contagion produced was mass enthusiasm.IN THEIR CHOICE of subject matter, Fleiscer and Paramount went with this classic story; which was almost as well known as the SNOW WHITE fairy tale. In much the same mode as Disney, adaptation was applied freely. Rather than attempting to bring the entire novel to the screen (a herculean task for sure*), this Fleischer/Paramount collaboration opted to feature only Gulliver's encounter with the Lilliputions.THE ADDITION OF a central theme of a Royal Wedding's potential to unite the Kingdom of Lilliput with Blefuscu, the romantic involvement of the young Prince and Princess and the difficulties that arose between the prospective in-laws provided plenty of fodder to support a healthy proliferation of songs, snappy or otherwise.THE RELEASE OF this GULLIVER film, though met with less than spectacular box office, was followed by MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN (aka HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN).THE ONE TRUE legacy of GULLIVER was not really any sort of sequel; but rather the "discovery" of one of its characters. That character would be the town crier. Voiced by veteran Pinto Colvig, GABBY was promoted to his own series of cartoon shorts.NOTE * Doing a literal adaptation of GULLIVER'S TRAVELS would take an effort as lengthy and ambitious as Abel Gance's silent NAPOLEON (French, 1927).

"Gulliver's Travels" was the second animated movie in Cinema's history, released only two years after Disney's milestone "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and right before the no-less iconic "Fantasia", "Pinocchio", "Dumbo" and "Bambi". It's easy to tell that the film was meant to counterattack Disney's growing control on the world of animation… and even easier to guess that it failed, overpowered by the mastery and incomparable magic reached by the Disney studios.Disney pushed the edge of the envelope so far, making "Gulliver's Travels" suffering from any comparison. Yet it would be very unfair to label the film as a wannabe Disney and let random trivia affect an opinion toward a film mostly made for children. My guess is whether for "Gulliver's Travels", "All Dogs Go to Heaven" or "Time Before Land", children wouldn't care much about the logo introducing the film or any technical consideration, no more anyway than the on-screen experience carried by the story, the images, the songs and naturally, the characters. On that level, "Gulliver's Travels" provides all the ingredients of the best animated classics, and it's a great entertainment for children.Now, allow me to wake up my inner child, the little one who saw the film for the first time on a crappy VHS and after that, during a nice Saturday in my uncle's home. Coincidentally, the same year, I read a comic-book involving another character who, after a stormy night, found himself on an island inhabited by little people. It was enough for me to believe that any person washed up on an island would become a giant. In my child's imagination, it had to do with drinking too much water or something like that. Pretty crazy, isn't it? But that's the way I looked at Gulliver and never thought the Lilliputians were meant to be 'little people'. Needless to say it didn't change the film's over-all effect.I remember I also loved the cute scene-stealing Gabby, the town crier, voiced by Pinto Colvig (Goofy's voice for the experts) who through his exuberance, seemed to embody the most endearing traits of the seven dwarfs. His desperate attempt to tell the Lilliputians that "there is a giant in the beach" was my favorite part, closely followed by Gulliver's struggle to get rid of the ropes fixing him on the wooden platform, quite impressive for its physical realism. And when I saw the film again, a few years ago, as soon as Gabby started to shout "All's Well", the whole music resurrected in my mind, and I could whistle the tune all the way. As for Gulliver's first stand, I understood why I was so intimidated by his look as a kid when I learned he was animated by rotoscoping, a process involving tracing live-action forage frame by frame, probably one of the film's strengths, proving that it wasn't trying to imitate Disney.Indeed, the rotoscoping creates the perfect distinction between Gulliver and the Lilliputians, and from my adult's second viewing, I remember I was in awe when I saw Gulliver's expression, noticing the screams of Gabby in the castle's dungeon and his bewildered eyes when he realized it was a little man, not to mention his suave and low-pitched voice, that's animation at best, and it's still strange that Disney never thought of that process. Disney improved the drawing of human features with time, making rotoscoping useless, but within the context of "Gulliver's Travels", it gives the film a touch of modernity that slightly surpasses "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". It also highlights one of the film's unavoidable flaws, the design of Prince David and Princess Glory, who're the only 'little creatures' that don't look comical, but still feel like archetypes of the handsome prince and beautiful princess.However, the film doesn't overuse the two lovers from rival islands and the two annoyingly cute little birds who seemed to be borrowed from the 'other studio', but cleverly uses them as the hostages of their islands' enmity, even more unbelievable since it started on a disagreement over the songs to perform at the wedding : "Faithful" or "Forever", not as memorable as "Some Day, My Prince Will Come" or even the catchy "All's Well" or "It's a Hap-Hap-Happy Day" that became standards of Paramount studios, but performed together, they give the film the typical classic touch, deserving their Oscar nomination for Best song. At the end, children have the songs, comic reliefs with Gabby and the three spies, and Gulliver has quite an authoritarian presence and a hidden charisma that perfectly contrast with the other characters and contradicts the golden rule of a memorable villain, established by Disney. Who needs a villain with such a larger-than-life hero … literally.Now, it's easy to let cynicism cloud the appreciation of the film. Some can picture the Fleisher executives telling their animators "Listen, guys, we didn't want to make a film, but Disney proved it could work, so let's make our 'Snow White'". Then, the classic tale of Gulliver from Jonathan Swift, allows them to use similar plot devices such as a realistic person surrounded by goofy little characters, a romance, cute animals, and nice songs. But despite these similarities, "Gulliver's Travels" stands as a classic on its own, and comparing to "Snow White" is like comparing between "Bambi" and "The Lion's King". And again, would children really do such comparisons? "Gulliver's Travels" deserves in my opinion, the term of an animated classic, even by Disney standards. Granted it doesn't have the status of Disney movies from the era, nor a brighter palette of colors, something that can even be pointed out by a kid, but the second animated feature of all time, the first from a non-Disney studio deserves some credit for its nice attempt to compete with the Goliath of animation. And as far as I am concerned, within its own simplicity, all's well in "Gulliver's Travels".

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'.

The Fleischer studios followed Disney into the uncharted waters of feature length cartoons with this adaptation of Gulliver's adventures in Lilliput.It is colourful, charming, respectful, and gentle. The moral of the original shines through.The animation is perhaps of the same standard as Disney's shorts and, maybe, falls short of the heights achieved during Snow White (there is some obvious reliance on certain movement cycles, something you often saw in Disney's shorts of the time but less so in features).The comic relief elements may seem out of place, or they may appeal - this is a matter of taste. They are fine for kids.I personally felt that the rotoscoped Gulliver contrasted a bit too much with the hand animated Lilliputians, but that shouldn't be taken as a criticism - this is a pioneering film, and a good one.