Gulliver's Travels

The Fleischer studios were best known for their "Popeye" and "Superman" shorts, but the caliber of animation and story-telling in this 1939 feature-length film were on a par with Disney at that time. Had they not gone bankrupt in 1942, I suspect they would have surpassed Disney in many ways. The idea here was to do Disney's "Snow White" one better, and they came very, very close. The restored edition on DVD shows the depth and beauty of the artwork to perfection. Fleischer was even perfecting a "stereo-optic" process to add 3-dimensional depth to their images which was used in this film to good effect. The music is typical of the period, rather sugary for today's tastes, and the "Gabby" character introduced in this movie isn't nearly as funny as they seemed to think at the time. (Two "Gabby" shorts are also included on the DVD; draw your own conclusions.) I can only guess at the reactions of movie-goers who first saw this film in 1939, but I suspect that they were blown away by the sheer scope of the artwork. Gulliver is a "man-mountain" to the Lilliputians, and the scale and perspective between him and the "tiny people" is perfect throughout the film. The sequence where the tiny townspeople use a variety of skills to truss up the sleeping "giant" and cart him (literally!) to their king's palace is, by itself, worth the price of the entire movie. The pacing is a bit slow during the first part of the film, but the filmmakers do a nice job of setting up the conflict between the two tiny kingdoms, which (true to the spirit of Swift's story) is caused by the pride of the rival kings. I would've preferred less "Gabby" in this sequence, but I understand they were trying to establish a new character to compete with the Mouse. If you like good animation, you will enjoy this DVD.

Gullivers.Travels.1939.1080p.BluRay.x264.YIFY

When I was a kid, back in the early sixties, cartoons on television consisted of old high quality studio cartoons and the earliest, simplified, made-for-television cartoons. And I really liked a lot of them from both styles. But it was a special occasion when "Gulliver's Travels" was shown. I even preferred it to Disney's animated movies. Watching it again as an adult I can now see it's many weakness including it's primary flaw: that Fleischer Studios tried to make a Walt Disney movie instead of a Fleischer brothers movie. It is too clearly a reaction to "Snow White". And that's a pity. Both as a child and even now, my favorite cartoons of all are the Fleischer productions of the thirties... Betty Boop and especially Popeye. Disney's short cartoons generally just don't compare; too shallow, too insipid. I didn't use those words 40 years ago, but I felt the same then. And although Gulliver reproduced these Disney deficiencies, enough of the Fleischer style was present for me to really like it. If only they had followed their own hearts instead of Uncle Walt's I might be enjoying it as much now as I did back then.

Like many before me, I wanted to see this film purely for it's historical worth. I can say it was at least interesting to see it but at the same time it was a terrible film. Especially when the only thing Gulliver's Travels may be compared is Disney's Golden Age. The animation in itself was acceptable but character designs and their emotions were the real reasons (with storytelling) for the score of 1. It is pretty sad but even Plane Crazy had better animation and 10 times better story. I won't spoil the story but I will say this: don't expect anything good from it. Songs were really bad, especially the first one. They had no real melody and the lyrics weren't any better. This film really stole ideas from Snow White. The clearest example are the birds. Their design, role and actions were a clone from Snow White's birds. I must say Princess Glory reminded me of Snow White very heavily (maybe because both were animated by Grim Natwick). Some of the characters' actions were just like the dwarfs' movements. Historically this is very a important film. Fleischers were Disney's last real rival and this was their first feature (and the second hand- drawn film in history). Now I understand why Fleischer studio was defunct by 1942. Don't watch this film if you look for a good film or entertainment. This film's worth is purely historical. If you are interested in early animation history watch this. If you are interested in marvelous and timeless films watch any film from Disney's Golden Age.

While I'm sure 'Gulliver's Travels' is still perfect fare for the very young who don't yet know what great animation is, when viewed today it pales in comparison to what today's artists can do. And yet, there are some astonishingly impressive scenes early on in the film--especially those involving the Lilliputians and Gulliver's body stretched out on the beach. Their ingenious methods of strapping him down, etc. are delightful moments that make the first twenty-five minutes of the film rewarding to watch. After he is brought to the castle, the film loses all of that originality and charm and becomes second-rate in terms of animation and story. When you consider that this film was made hurriedly in order to compete with 'Snow White' the same year--and before anything like computer wizardry was possible--it's quite an achievement. As a child I was dazzled by it. Seen from the distance of time, it's quite another matter--but the early sequences are still moments to cherish. Victor Young's score is tuneful but undistinguished and does little to add true value.

I thought that it was well done. The script closely parallel the book. This animation and love ballad must be critiqued in the context of it's time. Filmed in Techi-color and just the second full-length animated feature, it rivalled many of the light musicals on the silverscreen in the 1930's. If you have not seen it, judge for yourself.

"Gulliver's Travels" was made in 1939 by the studios of Max Fleischer, which was best known for their Popeye cartoons, as well as musical cartoon shorts in the vein of Disney's "Silly Symphonies." When it was learned that Disney was making the first full length animated feature "Snow White," Fleischer set to work on making "Gulliver's Travels" in order to try and compete with the full length animated feature market. Viewers today, especially historians of film have frequently tried to compare "Snow White" and Gulliver's Travels," though the two films are very different, most different of all being the plots. "Gulliver's Travels" is based upon an adaptation of the book, and is not faithful to the story, so if you are looking for a faithful rendition of this, look for the late 1990s film starring Ted Danson. There are two main types of characters here, Humans and cartoon characters. The human figures, those of Gulliver, the Prince and Princess were all created using a process by which live actors were filmed doing various things. The film was then taken and the humans were traced frame by frame in order to get their movements as realistic as possible. This is a process known as rotoscoping. The other characters are the typical late 30s style of animation, though theses characters have all 5 fingers instead of just 4 as is typical in cartoons. The films score was nominated for an Academy Award. Today the songs are pleasing, but not quite as catchy as tunes from Disney films. The film strikes me as being made primarily for a childrens audience, and the animation of the cartoon characters is typical 7 minute long cartoon animation. Today this film would be targeted for very young children. This film got a second life when it slipped into the public domain in the early 1960s and frequently showed up on television. This film, because it is Public Domain can be found of VHS and DVD, usually very cheaply. Because of its public domain status the print I viewed was scrated and dark, however I am sure the original film looked fantastic on a big screen.

I haven't read Jonathan Swift's story for a long time, but I remember loving it very much. This 1939 animated film mayn't be the best, definitive or the most faithful version, but can I be honest, it's actually my personal favourite. I don't know why, maybe because of nostalgia, this was a favourite of mine when I was a kid and I still love it. It is so warm, entertaining and beautiful, and might I say I consider it timeless too? The animation is actually really lovely, not tedious, undistinguished or dated as it has been criticised as. Instead it is beautiful and colourful. The colours are lavish, the backgrounds are mellow and the character designs are typical Fleischer, while the use of the Roto-Scope is incredibly effective. I also love the story. As I have said it is not the most faithful to the original story, but it is still a great and sweet one. It is one that tells of love, hope, friendship, adventure and even humour, all those qualities that makes an animated film so great. In some ways the first half-hour is better than the rest of the film, however the film is full of charming moments such as when Gabby pleads not to be eaten, when Gulliver brings David and Glory together, "there's a giant on the beach", the interaction between the spies and of course my favourite the really touching ending. There is a bit of Romeo and Juliet too, with the idea of the feuding kingdoms and I think it works. The script is really nice too, I admit I've heard better dialogue but there are much worse as well. Anything Gabby says cracks me up and Gulliver says some interesting things too. In fact, there is a perfect balance of humorous lines and touching sentiment. And I love the characters as well. Gulliver apparently was made to look like a real person, a bold and ambitious move and one that pays off, is it me or isn't he handsome and I love his rich baritone voice, reminds me of Emile from South Pacific. The King of Lilliput is also a nice character, bumbling and humorous, same with Bombo who appears to be rather mean but there is a small part towards the beginning that suggests otherwise. David is someone we don't see much but he is very handsome with a kind presence with a voice that takes you to another world. My favourites though are Princess Glory and Gabby. Princess Glory is absolutely beautiful, and while she has a quivering vibrato(like Snow White does) she has a very limpid and pleasant voice. And what do I need to say about Gabby? There may be times in his cartoons where Gabby comes across as selfish, mean and unapologetic, but we see a different Gabby here. A somewhat funnier Gabby, and in some ways you feel sorry for him too. The voice acting is also top notch for the time. Pinto Colvig, the wonderful voice actor he was, is great as Gabby, and Jack Mercer has fun as the King. Jessica Dragonette and Lanny Ross provide the voices of Glory and David beautifully, while Sam Parker is interesting as Gulliver. The pacing is brisk too, so the film never feels tedious or draggy, and while Gulliver's Travels is short it is very fulfilling. But do you know what my favourite part was? It was the music. It's all an acquired taste of course, but I absolutely love this sort of music, the mellow and rich sounds that are almost reminiscent of Rodgers and Hammerstein. "All's Well" has had me humming the tune for days on end, "It's a Hap Hap Happy Day" is quirky and upbeat and "We're All Together Now" is wonderfully uplifting and memorable. "Come Home Again" is hauntingly beautiful, while "Forever" and "Faithful" are sweet and romantic. In conclusion, beautiful, timeless and I think underrated film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Lemuel Gulliver, his ship wrecked in a fantastic storm, washes ashore on the island of Lilliput, inhabited by people so tiny that Gulliver is a giant in their eyes. Soon Gulliver finds himself entangled in a war between Lilliput and neighboring Blefuscu, all brought about because the two kings of these lands couldn't decide which song was to be sung at the wedding of their two beloved children, who happen to be deeply in love with one another. The animation is often breathtaking here especially when it focuses on the fairytale like romance between Prince David and Princess Glory. Unfortunately we never fully learn their back story or get to see much of them at all except when it's absolutely necessary to advance the plot. The rotoscoping process used for Gulliver is also fascinating to watch both in terms of its historical significance and the interesting visual impression of realism it creates on screen. However Jonathan Swift's satirical story is almost completely sacrificed here in favor of fairytale fantasy which arguably borrows more from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet than it does Gulliver's Travels. Its main focus also is on the wrong character, a town crier named Gabby who isn't particularly appealing to the viewer. Too many of the other far more interesting and fun characters get sacrificed to make room for him. Actually the best fun here comes the two kings and their interactions with one another not to mention the hijinks that goes on between Belfuscu spies Sneak, Snoop, and Snitch. Gulliver himself is reduced to friendly giant peacemaker. Prince David does get a great moment towards the end. Of course, it would have had far more impact of the viewer was actually made to care about him.

There are virtually no redeeming features in this tedious piece of animation. The songs are awful, the vocal characterisations weak, the story confused, the dialogue puerile and the animation, at best, a pale imitation of Disney. The only thing that it has going for it is a plea for peace, which, given the year that it was made, was certainly timely.