The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

I've seen the version of the story starring Ted Danson, which was quite good. This is nothing like that.Jack Black's Gulliver starts out in the real world of the present day, with a smart phone. That's all you really need to know about when this took place. He's not happy with his life in the mail room, and he wants more. A relationship with travel writer Darcy, and more opportunities to do the real work of the New York Tribune.The Internet makes things easy. When I was in high school and college, there was plagiarism, but it was more challenging because what we know today as the Internet didn't exist. Gulliver has an easy time impressing Darcy and gets sent to the Bermuda Triangle. Oh, so this is how it will work. And it's actually a pretty exciting scene as Gulliver gets sent into another dimension. Then he has the experience that Danson had, only funnier. This version of the story, pretty much limited to Lilliput, will go for laughs.And Lilliput is quite a complete nation, but with very small people compared to Gulliver. The castle where the royal family lives is huge. There is a city with lots of people, with varying ethnic backgrounds, and a countryside outside that city. And the Lilliputians have wars against other very small people from other nations.Only after Gulliver shows his value in fighting a war is he treated with respect. He is a hero. And then things get quite silly. Every movie Gulliver has ever seen becomes a detail of his life, and pop culture references show up in abundance. We later see a giant R2D2 from "Star Wars", combined with "Transformers", used in battle, for example. All because Gulliver's plans for a video game become a fighting robot.Meanwhile, the prisoner Horatio vies with the nasty Edward for the heart of Princess Mary. Horatio is released only because Gulliver is his friend. There is one scene where Mary is kidnapped, and I'm not sure whether it is atrocious writing or atrocious acting. No, it's actually brilliant writing and good acting, because most of the acting in this movie is quite good. I mean for the material. It takes real effort to make the acting look really bad. I am curious about one thing. Of course Gulliver loses cell phone service when he gets close to the Bermuda Triangle. How then is it possible he can receive the voice mails he missed--AFTER he crosses over? And these voice mails are quite important--if you think about it, there's an interesting plot twist coming. The battle scenes are pretty impressive. I watch several CW super hero shows, and it's a lot like that. Even Horatio gets involved. There is one cute scene in the world where everyone is big. It only has a little girl, who is quite big compared to Gulliver. Imagine what she would look like to Lilliputians. And the movie has a big musical number which is quite well done. Again, it seems silly to have the entire cast performing a song Gulliver likes. Also, the music here is quite old compared to, say, a romantic comedy starring teenagers. It comes closer to what I like. Let's say that.No, it doesn't rank as the most impressive of the productions based on the literary work. No, it is not literary work on its own. But it is enjoyable and somewhat well done. If you're the type of person who can enjoy Jack Black, you will probably like this.

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 watched it knowing what to expect: an absurd comedy for the whole family, starring Jack Black (who by the way, doesn't bother me, although I'd say I'm not a big fan of his either), and based very slightly in the ultra-famous satirical book by Jonathan Swift. Even with all that, I dared to take a look, waiting to find something entertaining and with a certain charm, but ... are at least those goals achieved? Let's say "so- so".It's not a completely bad and unwatchable film, but I would be unfair to myself if I say it's completely good.There are some jokes that work, especially those related to popular culture (Glee, Kiss, Prince, Calvin Klein, and Guns N' Roses) and the most successful movies in history (Star Wars, Avatar, Titanic, X-Men: Wolverine), but they are few, and the rest of the humor consists in not so memorable and overused jokes: Slapsticks, exaggerated gestures (mostly courtesy of Black), silly dances, etc.The pace is uneven: during the second half it seems so endless, repetitive and monotonous. It's a 85-minute flick, but sometimes 5 minutes felt like one hour; and then, in the last 20 minutes, everything happens so quickly, until concluding in a very accelerated ending, like if the fast-forward button on the DVD was automatically pressed and before you realise it, the movie is over and the end credits roll on screen.The acting isn't good either: Jack Black plays himself... again, Amanda Peet has got not so much to do, Jason Segel embarrasses himself, Emily Blunt is wasted. Only Chris O'Dowd seems to enjoy his character, easily the best thing about this.The special effects aren't anything special, and sometimes they're even mediocre (the use of green screen looks fake, specially in the scene where the enemy army attacks Lilliput).Maybe some kids will like it, or at least will have a good time, but also, it is possible they'll rapidly forget about it afterwards. While on the other hand, moms and dads, may get easily bored.

Personally I wasn't that impressed with the film, it was an easy watch on Film 4 so I didn't lose money on it so it balances out.I didn't really relate or believe in any of the characters (fictional or not) and the whole film seem squeezed in towards the end like there should of been 2 films but they didn't have the budget for it.I think Jack Black was right for the role but the film didn't do him justice. Maybe he was expecting something more like his role in 'King Kong' when he read the script?I'm sounding too negative now so ermm...It may be a good film for children if you can be bothered to explain what the Bermuda Triangle is.Dan