I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

So looking at the votes one sees that nearly everyone below the age of fifty rated this as a five or less. And females under 18, the most forgiving, only gave it a five-point-nine.And that made me scratch my head. Why? Because I actually enjoyed the film, but then again I'm a glutton for (mostly) clean humor (urination and proctological scenes not with standing). I think the major issue with this film is that it was made twenty to thirty years too late for things like Star Wars' references to really resonate with the audience.You have a kind of clash of cultures here which is more age dependent than anything else. In essence it's a film made for 80s and 90s teens and pre-teens, and not really a general purpose cross generational comedy. And, as a kid at heart, I liked the film for what it is, and could appreciate the humor, cultural references and homage to Swift's original tale.The special effects are right for the film, it's exceptionally well shot in spite of the limitations of dealing with a character who has Godzilla like screen presence in comparison to the supporting characters, and even the humor, as dated as it is, is good. It's a silly film, but it's supposed to be, and that's kind of the point that I think a lot of people missed. For just as Swift was satirist, so is this film commenting on other scifi-fantasy films of the last twenty years, and using those film making styles to reinvent Swift's original tale.The other problem is that a lot of Swift's original intent in commenting on political structures and human nature is lost in translation in the film's desire to be appealing to teens who have since grown up and had kids of their own. In this sense it's following the "Juvenification of America" by treating the audience like adult teenagers.A more interesting film would have been on the order of the two part mini series that aired some twenty years earlier, starring Ted Danson. A film that commented on politics, society, and human nature in general, as opposed to a film about adults being too stuff shirted to enjoy The Empire Strikes Back. And that's probably the core of why this film doesn't appeal to more people, because where Jack Black's Gulliver is a youth at heart, his child like qualities don't bring any real reform to the world that gave rise to the dilemmas that he and his size are forced to address. In other words, the more things change the more they stay the same.All in all I really enjoyed the film, and just on a basic "turn your brain off" level, I fail to see why more people didn't like the thing. But, that's just me.Even though I've dissected it and given it some praise and explained why it might fail to appeal, even though it's a fairly decent movie, you might want to check out a copy at the library.See it once, and if it doesn't meet your expectations, well, at least now you'll know why.Either way, try to enjoy it.

Gulliver's Travels (2010): Dir: Rob Letterman / Cast: Jack Black, Amanda Peet, Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris O'Dowd: Here is the umpteenth time Gulliver ventured to the land of little people where discipline is strict. It is a film about imagination starring Jack Black as Gulliver who works in the mail room yet desires the hottie female up several floors. He is soon boating off on an assignment regarding the Bermuda Triangle where he is whisked away in a storm and awakens pinned down ashore as a prisoner to a society of little people. He eventually gains their approval when he saves the Princess from an invasion, as well as save the King from a fire when he urinates the fire out. Director Rob Letterman had greater success with Monsters Vs Aliens but here the editing is terrible and there is sequences that appear broken such as the unexplained escape from "the land where thou man shall not go" as well as Gulliver's discovery there. Black fares okay as the destined hero who goes from mail room to giant hero although special effects are so horrid that it is too evident of Black's placement on the screen. The idea of Amanda Peet showing interest in this guy is perhaps the stuff of adolescent fantasy, and her boating after him is a joke. Jason Segel first appears as a prisoner due to his interest in the Princess and despite predictable elements he steals moments when Gulliver gives him advice. Emily Blunt as the Princess is straight forward and dull pulled in two directions. Chris O'Dowd is amusing playing the commander of the miniature army at hand. This film should travel into a trash compactor. Score: 2 ½ / 10

I didn't have much hope for Gulliver's Travels when I sat down to watch it. I do love Jack Black and Jason Segal and I have enjoyed other Rob Letterman directed movies (Monsters vs. Aliens, Shark Tale) but from trailers and responses I had heard from others, this one sounded like a real stinker. And this one sure lived up to the poor reviews.The movie actually started out fairly good with us learning how Gulliver (Black) would ultimately get to the Bermuda Triangle where he was a giant. Unfortunately, from the moment he arrives, the movie falls apart. Once there, Gulliver must save the city time and time again and becomes the hero as he wards off fires and attacks on the city.The movie relies on really immature humor that just doesn't work for me in this movie. We have a giant Jack Black falling down backwards with his pants drooping and the mini person going into his butt. And then a couple scenes later we have Black urinating on miniature people.Despite the poor story and ridiculous humor, Jack Black is still in it. That has to count for something right? Well it could't raise this steaming pile to anything more than a 4. This one was a real disappointment for me.

With a career at its disappointing pinnacle Lemuel Gulliver (Jack Black) delivers mail in a publishing house, whilst secretly, if pretty obviously, obsessing about travel editor Darcy Silverman (Amanda Peet). A nervous mix-up has Jack telling tall tales about his great adventures, thus unwittingly applying for a post as travel writer - and getting it by copy pasting a perfect article. His first employ has him chugging off to the Bermuda triangle in search of a sunny story, instead finding himself whisked away by a whirlwind straight into the kingdom of Liliput. There he finds himself trapped by General Edward (Chris O'Dowd). His only comrade fellow inmate Horatio (Jason Segel), chained due to his unwise endearments towards Princess Mary (Emily Blunt).Despite a somewhat promising cast, the intent to modernise the story has Gulliver's story transformed into a humourless self-parody with some crude or even mildly obscene jokes (surprising given its family friendly rating) forcibly making way for anything resembling narrative. The highlights of which is Black urinating on a fire or falling on his butt-cheeks with a Liliput inserting himself... you know where. As can be expected Jack Black (like him or forever leave him) returns to character as the endless man-child with some geeky back-story and limited wit. Therefore he seems entirely at home handing out some PG obscenity and molding remarks like 'Ship Happens'.The story itself has been trivialised to MTV style fanfare with none of the social commentary of Jonathan Swift (however outdated it may have seemed given its 1726 context), instead supplanted with two woozy love interests and a multitude of over-the-top jesters (also guised in the form of kings and generals). The overall story has whittled down to the bare minimum of Liliputs and conflicting kingdoms, but apart from the that the connection is non-existent. Despite some expensive looking special effects quality is a non-ingredient, instead reaching to gutter levels for humour and placing all the weight of carrying the movie on Black's antics. Given Segel, Blunt and co fail to turn up, instead handing out a bland exaggerated ensemble performance "Gulliver's Travels" is essentially a pretty cringing experience.