Kirpianuscus
first, for its innocence. because it is a real animation film for children. sweet, lovely, testimony about a time . in same measure, it remains a delight. for a form of simplicity and beautiful songs and the wise use of Jonathan Swift classic novel. for a kind of romanticism, graceful, delicate, fragile and seductive. sure, it is easy to criticize it. if you ignore the period who defines it. because it is a manifesto against war but, in same sense, it is inspired use of childhood colors, flavors and joy. and this is the only detail important.
ElMaruecan82
"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".
mike48128
It's must be "public domain" as the copy quality varies a great deal. Most copies suffer from drab, faded colors-reddish brown. It's a cute story: "Gabby", the Lilliputian night watchman, discovers Gulliver, "the giant" on the beach so they tie the giant up and transport him to town. Meanwhile, the two kings are fighting over the proper song to be sung at their children's wedding, which leads to war between the two countries. Gulliver stops the war by rounding up all the gunships and towing them to shore. There are several humorous characters: the spies, a goofy carrier pigeon, the townspeople. The story is really more about them than Gulliver. It seems padded, as there is not much going on, and the scenes seem to drag. Is it cute? Yes. Is it in the same class as Disney animation from the same period? Not even close. The first part of the film is very well-animated, but the rest of it seems "rushed" to be finished. One good song: "It's a Hap Hap Happy Day". Mis-shot frames abound, but this is always a problem with early cell animation. A few shorts with "Gabby" were also made after this feature. Paramount then set up their own "Famous Studios" after "firing" Max Fleischer; which would be like firing Walt Disney! (I am looking for "Mr. Bug Goes to Town." I have never seen it, and it is supposedly Max Fleischer's best animated feature.) "Gulliver" is still great fun to watch, but it's hard to find a decent copy. The new Blue Ray is terrible, as it "stretches" the picture and "cuts off" heads.
Neil Welch
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.
