everything you have heard about this movie is true.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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.

The reason why most modern movies are so dim-witted is obvious after watching Rob Letterman's version of Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels": the film has been made by restless kids for restless kids...and if you're not a restless kid, the inane dialogue ("Dude, that is harsh!"), the hammy star performance and the elaborate but familiar special effects are not enough to hold interest. We know so much about how effects-oriented movies are made these days that to have Jack Black constantly interacting with the Lilliputians in the same way (hunched over in front of a green screen and nodding maniacally) offers us no magic, no mystery and no fun. A mailroom worker with a New York City newspaper invents a talent for writing and is immediately given an assignment: to explore the Bermuda Triangle! (there's a current topic burning on everyone's mind). His boat is sucked into a waterspout and he washes up on the city of Lilliput, inhabited by tiny people--and a princess in danger. Screenwriters Joe Stillman and Nicholas Stoller specialize in a sort of frat boy/post-druggie sense of humor meant to tickle 10-year-olds. In this case, Black was the actor for them, as the star is still doing the same sloppy, cool-nerd shtick he specialized in over a decade ago. The whole picture feels like an awful rerun, with cheap, prodding jokes; at one point, Black goads lovestruck Horatio into dancing to the Prince song "Kiss", but instead of laughing we're wondering why the producers used a sound-alike version of the tune in place of the original (too expensive on a budget of $112 million?). Had Black suddenly started dancing too, it would be about as logical as anything else happening in "Gulliver's Travels". With nothing fresh added to the story and nothing interesting happening from a visual standpoint, this unfunny fiasco aimed at the collective hip-factor will only appeal to restless kids--undiscriminating ones. * from ****

Personally I wasn't that impressed with the film, it was an easy watch on Film 4 so I didn't lose money on it so it balances out.I didn't really relate or believe in any of the characters (fictional or not) and the whole film seem squeezed in towards the end like there should of been 2 films but they didn't have the budget for it.I think Jack Black was right for the role but the film didn't do him justice. Maybe he was expecting something more like his role in 'King Kong' when he read the script?I'm sounding too negative now so ermm...It may be a good film for children if you can be bothered to explain what the Bermuda Triangle is.Dan

This movie consists of dull performances, an average score and an average modern rendition of 'Gulliver's Travels', riddled with clichés and topped off with below par special effects and directing.You'd think, with a story focusing on extremities, that the creators would've at least tried to make it something more than a bland cash cow.Amanda Peet was, well... a lesser version of the regular Amanda Peet. The same applies to Jack Black. Nothing feels natural, even the things you would normally ascribe to Mr. Black. And the chemistry between the two was totally absent. Luckily, their interactions were limited. The performances of Jason Segel and Emily Blunt were slightly better, but I wouldn't call it acting either. Something more along the lines of amateur role-playing.All in all, I think people are really hungry for 3D, which would explain the box office success. I can't see how anyone would go and watch this excuse for a movie otherwise.My advice: If you need a movie to bring your kids to, this is the one. No kids to bring? Avoid at all cost!

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.