Massimo Marcello I can't even call this movie mildly entertaining. As a child, "Gulliver's Travels" was one of my favorite novels and comic books. This movie took a classic and completely slaughtered it. It's a shame to think that kids that have not seen or read the original version will think this crap to be the true storyline. Shame. This movie is not supposed to be a comedy. Fine if one attempts to throw a "twist" to the original version, but this was no twist. It was a complete destruction and insult to a historic classic. What an unnecessary account of this story. Adding further insult to injury, is featuring Black to star in the movie. I thought Ted Danson was bad. Black manages to bring this classic story down to new levels of low.

ApeLieUproar This film missed a good chance to tell Jonathan Swift's 18th century satire in a modern, humorous setting. With the comedic talen of Jack Black, it could have been interesting. Instead, it's reduced to standard Hollywood formula. But it doesn't even do it well. It's all paint-by-numbers, with all the actors palpably filling in the numbered areas. As another reviewer pointed out, Jack Black basically plays his School of Rock character. The other performances are uniformly wretched and even the effects aren't that great. But even if they were, the movie wouldn't be improved. Avoid.

elshikh4 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 !

SnoopyStyle Jack Black plays up the slacker loser a little too much. He's so pathetic and apathetic at the beginning that it's hard to root for him. Then all the actors are hamming it up. The actors are so broad that I'm laughing at the actors more than laughing with the actors. They are all doing this BIG acting that it just felt too fake. Some physical gags do get a smile. But they are far in between. For a comedy, the only important calculation is how many laughs there are. For this, there just isn't that many. Also Jack Black didn't need to lie so much. The fact that he lied so much made him just so much more unlikeable. It was a bad comedy but not necessarily as bad as the critics says.