Gulliver's Travels (2010)

Load of rubbish!!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

This movie was pathetic - such a HUGE disappointment. I'm not sure what the producers and directors were thinking???? I don't think they were thinking. Emily Blunt is a GREAT actress but wow, such a HUGE disappointment. NEVER AGAIN! Jack Black wasn't even funny. Why was he even considered? Why didn't they stick to the novel? I don't know what else to say but UGH! The story did not even being to resemble the awesome book. I'm sure the author is rolling over in his grave. So, this was pathetic, disgusting, stupid, disappointing... Am I forgetting anything? Oh yes, STUPID! Oh and don't even think about seeing this pathetic piece of - I can't even call it work, because its not a good piece of work. It's a sorry piece of trash. I honestly could not finish watching this and forbade my grand kids from watching it. Instead we went to the library and got the old version, that goes more by the book and is charming and interesting. I suggest you do the same. Please don't waste your time on this trash. Have a nice day.

Chris O'Dowd and Jason Segal had the worst English accents I've ever heard. You honestly don't have to be Irish or Amercian to get the English accent right like why did they have to make a balls of the casting?! Whoever had the idea of creating a remake of "Gullivers Travels", needed their heads checked! It was just ridiculous in casting them in the first place, they should've got better actors besides them. I like Chris O'Dowd and Jason Segal but at the same time, they weren't just suited for their roles! Emily Blunt's character sounded like such a whiny spoiled b**** that needed a reality check. Emily Blunt is a good actress but she just didn't suit the role well or did a good job. She would've been better off if she wasn't involved! Omg we go onto Jack Black, he was poor enough as Gulliver. The scene where he peed on the burning castle was the lazy way to get the movie entertaining. That was just wrong and weak.Everything involved in the movie was awful!

I loved the succession of that script. I loved most of the cast, especially (Emily Blunt) and (Jason Segel). And I loved the transformer's design and moments. The problem though is that all the rest has problems !The script is the movie's biggest sin. There isn't anything further the main events. OK. They hired someone to remake Gulliver's Travels, where he did good job, then forgot to hire someone to write the comedy. It's sad that the movie has gags famine. You have to hate comedy when it lacks comedy !(Jack Black) doesn't do much; he merely phones in his lines indifferently. The material he has doesn't differ from Harvey the rabbit. I don't know how he approved to do it as dry as this, rather how he didn't add anything of his own ? Otherwise he added what didn't eventually work ! Anyhow, he seemed working without passion in something he doesn't want, or that's what he really looks like in the so-called family comedies ! I felt that the character played by (Amanda Peet) was supposed to be funny, but nothing was funny about it, from the way it was written to – for sure – the way it was acted (I'm still trying to erase Peet's goofy dance from my memory !). The CGI suffered being obvious in many spots, I was badly shocked when knew that the budget was 112 million dollars (most probably the movie's CGI experts drank beer with it !). And there wasn't spontaneity in anything; just the "War" song, and that's it. This is not a bad movie. It's a so-so one. The thing is it didn't utilize its talents to the max, being poor and executive at best. And they can't get away with it even by pretending that it's a kids movie. Believe me, with a movie like this, sooner or later kids will hate you !P.S : Ideas like extinguishing a fire by Gulliver's urine, or getting a soldier stuck in Gulliver's butt WERE DAMN WRONG !

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.