उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

We all know bits and pieces of Gulliver's travels. Tiny people, yeah, sure. Liliputians. Giants too, some of us may recall. Some might remember the word yahoo comes from here. That's were it stops for most people.

Swift's book is omnipresent in school libraries. That's were i first read it, and there's were a lot of people read it for the last time. It is treacherously lightly written, like many of the old adventure books. Children can read it. Still, it's dripping with satire, black and uncompromising. That's something I think most screen writers forget when they adapt this movie.

This movie remembers, however. Our hero, Ted Danson, gives a credible and serious performance as the world-adjusted man who's thrown to mysterious countries so like our own. Gulliver's travels criticizes everything. Theists, scientists, government, commonfolk, ethnicity, humanity itself. Few are spared, and most of the satire is just as fresh today.

While very faithful to the story, the movie also dares adding new angles, all which work very well. The screen writer deserves all credit for managing to balance so well between time and activity(it's not boring, that is).

Production values are way beyond a TV movie. With some marketing this movie would have done well at the box office. All of the fantastic worlds Gulliver visits are well-made, explained in detail and often very funny, much like Swift's book.

Actors are all pros, since this is a British production. Mary Steenburgen stands out, along with James Fox's Dr. Bates, the chillingly cruel doctor who, much like nurse Ratched, only wants the patient's best.

So, a modest proposal, if you ever get the chance to get this movie, do so. It's a real treat.

I guess I have to write something here, although I think my one summary says it all. I'm not a huge Ted Danson fan... nothing against the man, just hasn't "done it" for me. This covers the sides of Swift's novel that were never covered before. You can tell the cast was having a wonderful time filming this.

This was a truly epic production that had all the elements that one would want in a fantasy film. The costuming, the music, the cinematography - all artistic elements of this film were absolutely beautiful and provided a rich experience.

Ted Danson, best know for his TV roles in "Cheers" and "becker," was excellent in the role of Gulliver. Mary Steenburgen (Time After Time, Cross Creek) performed equally well in her limited role as his wife.

Other performances I really enjoyed were James Fox as Dr. Bates, Alfre Woodard as the Queen of Brobdingnag, and Peter O'Toole as the Emperor of Lilliput.

This would make an enjoyable children's film, but it also would definitely appeal to adults for it's deep social commentary.

This is an exceptional adaptadation of the book. An all-star cast which gives merit and worthwhile to the tv-film and Danson in his best performance yet as a sailor who becomes lost at sea, only to return some years later a different man - a man who has learnt alot of humanity in his journey's and a man casted as insane.

Throughout the movie you don't know whether Danson's character is sane or not. The amazing effects and direction make it a marvel to watch. The all-star cast enjoy their roles to the hilt.

The sequences within the asylum are disturbing, as are Danson's twisted hatred on humans, and what they have become. And in some aspects the thought-provoking stories that Gulliver went through can still be adapted today.

For example the "we drink when we are not thirsty and eat when we are not hungry" is a typically haunting line. The social commentary which underlines the novel and indeed this film can still be used and adapted today.

This is a thought-provoking, well made TV-film that is very enjoyable, and I recommend you watch it.

My Rating: 8/10

At first i didn't like they way the director was constantly switching from the past (gulliver's travels) to the present (gulliver in the insane asylum). But it really is the best way to film the story even though it took some getting used to. Danson is outstanding as the title character and edward fox makes a wonderful villain. Worst part is mary steenburgen as gulliver's wife. She never has been Hollywood gorgeous and in this film they make her look downright dowdy for some reason. I'll never understand why directors make a woman ugly when it adds nothing to the story! Plus you want to strangle her for being so damn stupid in believing the lies bad guy Bates keeps telling her. Even her son can see thru the bastard. Still a good show and i rate it B+.

Swift's writing really has more in common with Kafka and Orwell than with fantasy-adventure writers, so it's curious that Gulliver's Travels has been deemed a children's novel. Lucky kiddies!

The same applies to this movie. There have been some really awful versions of this story, which must be why people are reluctant to look at this version. I mean, it's a TV-movie and it comes from muppetteer Jim Henson, so how should we expect anything but cuteness?

Look again - beauty turns up in the oddest places. Children love this movie enough to sit through all three hours of it, but it also takes the time to get Swift's dark vision right. I hate special effects, but here they are used to carry the story forward instead of just dazzling us. Please note that the producers took the trouble to recruit classical actors like John Gielgud and Peter O'Toole who perform their eccentric roles with perfection.

Dramatically, the romance between Gulliver and Glumdalclitch is rendered touching and poignant, as well as funny (she's a little girl, but twenty times his size). The frame-story has a theme about absent fathers that many children will relate to. And the part about Gulliver in the asylum introduces an element of horror dealing with the abuse of authority (apparently deriving from Val Lewton's "Bedlam" [1946], another forgotten masterpiece).

The VHS is always turning up in the bargain-bin for a few cents, which is an insult to the many great artists who put this thing together. I encourage audiences to recognize a good thing by getting this movie and inspiring others to watch it. Although it has a lot to offer children, grown-ups will find that it stands up nicely to such classics as Aguirre, Brazil, 1984 and other serious fantastic works.

Much of it was filmed in Portugal, I was looking up the various palaces involved-

Sintra-

-Monserrate(Laputa) -Queluz(Brobdingnag) -Ribafria Palace (Sorcerer's Palace, I think) -Castle of the Moors(Struldbrugs)

Lisbon-

-Ajuda(Burning Palace, Lilliput)

Mafra-

-Royal Palace and streetscapes (Lilliput) -Sea Cliffs (Brobdingnag and Lilliput)

The Doctor's Mansion is obviously in the Cotswold limestone district... anyone recognize it?

The final shot is modelled after the Paul Nash painting "Landscape from a Dream", surrealism seems right for a movie like this.

www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/nash-landscape-from- a-dream-n05667

This film is wonderful example of the quality dramas that Channel 4 and the BBC have produced over the years. Ted Danson delivers a powerful performance of a man tormented by memories noone will accept, and a society that believes he is insane. It is a remarkable performance by a man most known for his role in Cheers, a TV comedy sitcom. The supporting cast are all very well chosen, not least Mary Steenbergen, Danson's wife, who acts the part of Gulliver's wife in the film. But above all it is the seamless and very delicate shifts between our world and Gulliver's world that make this film. The difference in perspective between giants and midgets, all acted by real actors is beautifully captured. A rare treat of cinematography and direction.

Ted Danson was a great choice to play Gulliver. Even though his background was mostly comedy, he shows here that he can do drama just as well or perhaps even better (though there is a lot of humour in this). Hard to turn a blind eye to his American accent especially since his character is supposed to be English but that's just a minor thing.

All the villains are equally well cast: James Fox, Edward Fox, Peter O'Toole, Warwick Davis, John Standing, etc. Despite the fact that most of them are either tiny people or giants, they are 100% believable in everything they do and their motivations are very clear e.g. the Lilliputians' unremitting suspicion of Gulliver, Grildrig the (giant) dwarf's hatred of him for usurping his position as court jester, Dr. Bates' attempt to have Gulliver proved insane so he can marry Mary.

Mary Steenburgen is great as Mary Gulliver (another 17th Century English character with an American accent but never mind). She is a deeply tormented character because she has been waiting nine years for her husband to return home and when he finally does, he is talking about tiny people, giants, a flying island and talking horses! Mary, despite the strong fantasy element in the story, is a very believable character.

The special effects are breathtaking especially when you consider that it was filmed on a television scale at a time when CGI was in its infancy. It looks very realistic when we see a 6 foot tall man walking through a city filled with people who are 6 inches tall.

The cameos are great as well: Omar Sharif, Richard Wilson, Sir John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ned Beatty. All great actors who create a strong supporting cast that complement Danson's superb acting ability.

The Houynhnhms and the Yahoos are probably the most effective element of the story on the satire side of things: a society of talking horses who do not possess any of the vices that humans have while the Yahoos are primitive, disgusting humans who mate forcefully and appoint their leader depending on how disgusting he is. Gulliver and Mistress' study of them is also very well done and displays the differences and similarities between humans and Yahoos.

The best version of "Gulliver's Travels" by far and one of the best mini-series ever.

At two hours, this could have been a very good movie but at three hours?? No, that's at minimum 40 minutes too long. The first hour of this is very good but after that it slowly loses steam. The flashback scenes are almost all interesting but when it gets back to the "current" story, Ted Danson drones on and on and on, trying to convince an unbelieving audience. By then, the viewer gets frustrated wondering if Danson's character "Lemuel Gulliver" will ever be believed and the conniving lying Dr. Bates (played well by James Fox) will ever be exposed for who and what he is.

It's a very clean-language movie since it was a mini-series for television, and few people can argue with the "peace and love" message, but the it's long and frustrating to watch more than once.

This has got to be without a doubt, the best adaption of Gullivers Travels that I have ever seen. It is visually stunning, with wonderful special effects (you really can't tell whats real and what's not now!) and a stunning cast. Ted Danson is perfect in his role of Lemual Gulliver, and he plays it with the right amount of emotion and anger. It enthralled me from the very beginning, from his first day back home, to the land of the Whinnims and Yahoos. And who can forget the frighting scene as the ill and blind but immortal women cry out 'You'll never die!' Although I have many favourite scenes I think my favourite is the court scene where Gulliver gets the upper hand. That scene is very exciting and tense and your rooting for him all the way. All in all wonderful stuff. Something that should be shown in school across the world, for there is a powerful message is it: Are we humans not simply just a race of Yahoos?..........

Gulliver's Travels (1996) - I remember seeing this film for the first time back when it was released as a two part TV special and I remember being awed by it and inspired by its brilliance.

It's such a clever and witty story that has been made with justice and a plethora of big names and equally good smaller names too.

There is a shiny and colourful quality to it that is joyful and incredibly entertaining. For years I have been waiting to see it repeated on TV or to find it on DVD, which I finally did. I am so pleased to finally have it to watch whenever I like, because it is a film that you can see over and over and not get bored of.

It also breaks down in to five small segments covering not just Gulliver's trip to Lilliput, but his other travels as well, the only version of this story to do so.

To think that the book that this film was based on was written in 1726 is extraordinary, as it is such a fantastic tale full of outrageous and hilarious characters. Perhaps a lot of that has been added by the film, I don't know as I haven't read the book just yet, but if so, then all the better for their ingenuity to bring the tale to a new audience.

I love the way that the story is edited together and overlaps in to "Reality", it shows Lemuel's return to England at the beginning of the film and through his ravings at the sanatorium we find out where he has been and the great adventures he has had.

Despite the chronology jumping around in this way, it was still incredibly easy to follow and actually helped to move the story forward.

The cast is outstanding, with too many acknowledgements to be made for this short review and despite Ted not being British, like all the others and, as far as we know, the character he is portraying, he actually played his part exceedingly well, especially when you consider that my only other references to him are 'Cheers' (1982-93) and '3 Men And A Baby/Little Lady' (1987/1990).

The humour is simple and inoffensive, while the story explores more complex issues such as the misunderstanding of Mental Health issues and their treatments, or lack there of in the 18th Century.

It also looks at forms of government and how bizarre they may seem to an outsider. The author, Jonathan Swift, must surely have been mocking the British Government with what he wrote. He seems to also be saying that we should be more tolerant and accepting of other cultures and races, because our institutions may seem just as queer to them as theirs do to us.

He puts our society and cultures in to question by observing it from the perspective of other species, other laws and regimes.

As such it is full of Morals, ethics and important messages for the viewer to take on board and I believe that it would be a valuable and enjoyable watch for any age.

I may actually have to get on a boat and try to find my way to Brobdingnag, as it sounds like a haven compared to the fumbling rules and laws of the Britain I currently live in. If only I didn't suffer so badly with sea sickness.

Even the special effects were good for the time that this film was made, although I didn't like the wasp bit, close up bugs freak me out.

Thoroughly enjoyable and unrivalled in its telling. As the only version to tell the whole story, it is a charming fantasy tale, ideal for all the family on a bank holiday weekend and easy to pause for toilet and snack breaks.

921.11/1000.

I remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level.

I remember this film quite clearly when I was in high school. At the time, I found it fantastic that I could watch a book without worrying about the doldrums of actually reading it. Looking back on it now, I remember a feeling of fantasy and imagination. I could only wonder what was running through Swift's mind as he wrote this symbolic story. Watching it again, older ... wiser ... and more inept to read instead of watch, I thought it was still a wonderful story. There were flaws, as there is with any made-for-TV film, but they seemed smaller then some of the big budget films that I have witnessed lately. I think that the fact that Henson's son had his hands in this allowed the creativity to leap from the screen.

The biggest aspect of this film that I enjoyed was the satire on society. In every place that Gulliver travels he either imposes his society on others or they impose on him. There are times when they try to co-exist, but it ultimately fails in the end. Overall, the film is very well done indeed, with perfect art design, costuming and atmospheric direction by Sturridge- the Glubbdubdrib section is brilliantly eerie. Ted Danson is nothing short of fantastic, in a studied yet emotional performance. He has trouble with the English accent at times, but the effects and ensemble acting overshadow it. Steenbergen is less memorable, but still effective. The star-studded supporting cast impresses throughout, especially to O'Toole's Lilliputian Emperor and Nicholas Lyndhurst's Clustril. The music is near perfect as well.

Overall, a decent outing by everyone involved and worth viewing again for those that may be hesitant to read the books.

Grade: *** out of *****

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS (1996/MTV/NBC) ***1/2 Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O' Toole, Alfre Woodard, Ned Beatty, Thomas Sturridge, Sir John Gielgud. Excellent mini-series adaptation of Jonathan Swift's classic satirical novel about Lemuel Gulliver (Danson in a fine performance) and his near descent into madness after his journey and many adventures amongst many different people including the legendary Lilliputians (the wee folk) and the the Brobdingnagians (giants) with splendid supporting cast and grandiose production design. Hats off to the special effects thanks to Jim Henson's effects shop and able direction by Charles Sturridge.

I first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.

Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.

It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.

I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland.

Excellent story-telling and cinematography. Poignant, biting social commentary.

Superb effects. Well-filmed and acted.

However, the parallel action between the present and the travel adventures (though very well done) at times drags on a little too much (about 3 hrs), and over-interrupts the flow of the story.

I first read the book as a child, and enjoyed the parts about the giants and the tiny people -- but the book lost me when it got to the floating island and the land of the "yahoos"! Well, although the adventure plot may sound like a children's story, it's in fact a very adult story, full of symbolism about the moral decay in England at the time of Jonathan Swift, the author of the novel that the film is based upon.

At some point I just got burned out on the proverbial over the top evil Caucasian male antagonist and lost complete interest. So very very cliche

I remember watching this when it first aired, I would of been 10 or 11 years old and I loved it, so much so I bought it when I was older so I could watch it again.

It's so well done, the effects for 1995 are excellent and Ted Danson as well as the rest of the cast are fantastic- their best performances!

When was 8 or so, my dad bought this mini-series for me without completely knowing what it was. He knew the gist of course, tiny people island, big metaphorical plot, good self observing message, but this was quite more then that. It had great acting first off. The guy who plays Gulliver and the women who plays his wife are actually married in real life, so that kind of makes things cool. I also watched without understanding that it went beyond big guy in little world. It goes far beyond Lilleputt, into other uncharted regions, and undiscovered islands that are absolutely astounding-watch out for the big underlining meanings their awesome. I would recommend the viewer to consider this like going to theater- its not a big budget movie or anything-its a 90s mini series-buts a heck of 90s mini series!!!

Not terrible, but mediocre. There's not much worse than a mediocre movie. You can laugh at a terrible movie, laugh at how badly it was made etc. Mediocre movies...you have to survive. this one made me cringe. the acting is really quite...mediocre. that stupid Brobdingnag girl...gaah! can't keep her southern accent away! "Chaaawclaate? Cahn ah have sume chaawclaate??"

It also didn't stay true to the book at all. Gulliver wasn't telling the story in the book! He was living it! There are millions of unnecessary changes that only make it worse. Such as leaving out Swift's depiction of the morals of the different people. In the book, the Lilliputians, although appearing small and innocent are actually immoral and mean creatures. While the Brobdingnagians, seeming large and scary, are actually extremely kind and gentile. In the movie, the Brobdingnagians make Gulliver lie to and cheat people for their money. Nothing like that ever occurred in Swift's genius satire. Believe me, this movie is not worth your three hours.