Les voyages de Gulliver

I've seen the version of the story starring Ted Danson, which was quite good. This is nothing like that.

Jack Black's Gulliver starts out in the real world of the present day, with a smart phone. That's all you really need to know about when this took place.

He's not happy with his life in the mail room, and he wants more. A relationship with travel writer Darcy, and more opportunities to do the real work of the New York Tribune.

The Internet makes things easy. When I was in high school and college, there was plagiarism, but it was more challenging because what we know today as the Internet didn't exist. Gulliver has an easy time impressing Darcy and gets sent to the Bermuda Triangle. Oh, so this is how it will work.

And it's actually a pretty exciting scene as Gulliver gets sent into another dimension. Then he has the experience that Danson had, only funnier. This version of the story, pretty much limited to Lilliput, will go for laughs.

And Lilliput is quite a complete nation, but with very small people compared to Gulliver. The castle where the royal family lives is huge. There is a city with lots of people, with varying ethnic backgrounds, and a countryside outside that city. And the Lilliputians have wars against other very small people from other nations.

Only after Gulliver shows his value in fighting a war is he treated with respect. He is a hero. And then things get quite silly. Every movie Gulliver has ever seen becomes a detail of his life, and pop culture references show up in abundance. We later see a giant R2D2 from "Star Wars", combined with "Transformers", used in battle, for example. All because Gulliver's plans for a video game become a fighting robot.

Meanwhile, the prisoner Horatio vies with the nasty Edward for the heart of Princess Mary. Horatio is released only because Gulliver is his friend.

There is one scene where Mary is kidnapped, and I'm not sure whether it is atrocious writing or atrocious acting. No, it's actually brilliant writing and good acting, because most of the acting in this movie is quite good. I mean for the material. It takes real effort to make the acting look really bad.

I am curious about one thing. Of course Gulliver loses cell phone service when he gets close to the Bermuda Triangle. How then is it possible he can receive the voice mails he missed--AFTER he crosses over? And these voice mails are quite important--if you think about it, there's an interesting plot twist coming.

The battle scenes are pretty impressive. I watch several CW super hero shows, and it's a lot like that. Even Horatio gets involved.

There is one cute scene in the world where everyone is big. It only has a little girl, who is quite big compared to Gulliver. Imagine what she would look like to Lilliputians.

And the movie has a big musical number which is quite well done. Again, it seems silly to have the entire cast performing a song Gulliver likes. Also, the music here is quite old compared to, say, a romantic comedy starring teenagers. It comes closer to what I like. Let's say that.

No, it doesn't rank as the most impressive of the productions based on the literary work. No, it is not literary work on its own. But it is enjoyable and somewhat well done. If you're the type of person who can enjoy Jack Black, you will probably like this.

While some find this picture a waste of time, I think the problem lies in one's inability to open up and think 'What if?'. I found the picture entertaining. It's Jack Black doing what Jack does best - act like Jack Black.

Although the storyline could have taken a different twist and went a little more in depth, it was done well enough to capture an audience for a while.

One bit of overlooked trivia - Amanda Peet's character was named Darcy Silverman. She and Jack Black worked together in the past in a movie called- 'Saving Silverman'.

Regardless, it was not a bad day at the movies.

Gulliver's Travels is fun, a fantasy, not taking itself seriously light comedy. You won't learn anything, you won't cry, you won't witness historic cinema in the making. You will spend an hour and a half watching an enjoyable family film that doesn't pretend to be anything more than a fun adaptation of an age old tale by Jonathan Swift.

I marked the film 7 because I enjoyed watching it, isn't that enough? Must everything be critiqued so much that we lose enchanting family films that just cheer us up momentarily.

Sometimes; Now this might upset the media studies students who seem to be taking over IMDb, sometimes I don't want to have to concentrate on plots and sub plots, sometimes I just want watch a film and escape for a bit, is that OK with you, must everything be Cannes fodder? If you want to have fun and watch a dumb romantic comedy watch Gulliver's Travels, if you're an over serious sneering sceptic... don't. It's that simple.

When I watched this movie I was expecting it to be very similar to the original story but modernised. However, it is a very odd adaptation of the classic tale (if it can be called that as there are practically no similarities at all from beginning to end). If you are planning on watching this film with the hope that it will resemble the classic even slightly, STAY AWAY. This film destroys the original story with it introducing all sorts of weird aspects to it that completely change the story line.

Jack Black plays Lemuel Gulliver in this movie but it is as if he is still Dewey Finn from 'School of Rock'. A better cast could have been brought in and that might have made up slightly for this movie flop. However, it is obvious that this film was not made to win lots of Oscars but made for family entertainment so I suppose it achieves something from being made. Overall this movie was a waste of money to make but could have been great if it had been properly thought out and had actually resembled the original tale. The special effects were quite good, though so families and younger children may enjoy it.

I generally don't like to review a movie according to how close it is to the book... but I noticed that many of the negative reviews are comparing it to the book; so to answer those comparisons.

1. "The movie is rude and crude and a disgrace to the classic." I assume they have either not read the book or read some sanitized abridge children version of the book. Not only does the book contain the crude parts in the movie but the books is more crude and descriptive. The movie didn't add "potty humor" but took out most toilet humor from the book.

2. "The movie only had Gulliver rather than the many islands in the book." True. But the book had years between each adventure and would have been a lot to try to put into one movie.... besides the 2nd half of the book sucked (somewhat joking somewhat serious).

Anyway... reviewing the movie. It's a good movie but not great. They did a good job changing from the 18th century to modern times. If you are looking for a fun Jack Black movie you won't be disappointed. And this movie inspired a couple of my friends to even read the book.