Film Review with Robert Mann – Gulliver’s Travels

29th December 2010

Gulliver’s Travels 3D *½
Gulliver’s Travels 2D *½

If you’ve been to the cinema at all in the last four months it is very likely that you will have seen at least once (or, if you see as many films as me, many times) a certain Orange advert encouraging viewers to turn their phones off while the film is showing, an advert featuring Jack Black in Gulliver’s Travels.
Like many moviegoers you may also have thought that the advert was just that – an advert – but as hard as it may be to believe based on the poor production values on display in that advert (even though, as an advert, it does prove rather amusing – for the first couple of times at least, less so after you’ve seen it so many times that you’ve lost count), Jack Black’s Gulliver’s Travels is a very real movie and one that has already been pegged to be one of the worst movies of the year and has already become one of the biggest box office disasters of the year in the states where is opened to simply dreadful numbers over the Christmas weekend, a period regarded to be one of the biggest of the year for cinema-going in America. A modern reimagining of Jonathan Swift’s classic tale, Gulliver’s Travels 2010 was always destined to royally piss off literary purists and likely make Swift himself turn in his grave – I haven’t read the original book but I’m pretty sure it didn’t feature Gulliver urinating on a fire to put it out or battling a giant (or, should I say, average size?) robot – but with Monsters Vs Aliens director Rob Letterman (in his live action directorial debut) and writers Nicholas Stoller (Fun With Dick and Jane, Yes Man and Get Him to the Greek) and Joe Stillman (Shrek, Shrek 2 and Planet 51 – that last credit not being one to brag about much) forming the creative team behind this latest take on Swift’s famed fable and the cast including a range of popular and talented comedians, including numerous recognisable British faces, you would probably at least expect a comedy that delivers the laughs even if, as evidenced by both the Orange advert and the actual trailer, not so much the effects – particularly the 3D, this being yet another post production conversion of a 2D movie and one where, unlike previous conversions, they didn’t even bother to do a decent job of converting the trailer to 3D. So, is Gulliver’s Travels actually worth travelling to the cinema to see or, as many have foretold, is it indeed one of the worst movies of the year and one to be avoided at all costs?

Lemuel Gulliver (Jack Black) is a lowly mailroom worker at a newspaper who has no ambition in life and whose crush on his object of affection, travel editor Darcy Silverman (Amanda Peet), is destined go nowhere because he can never get up the courage to ask her out. Everything changes, however, when a new employee gets promoted ahead of him, prompting him to decide to try and make a move on Darcy. Things don’t work as planned, though, and, instead of getting a date, he finds himself going off on a travel writing assignment to discover the secret of the Bermuda Triangle. At sea, his boat encounters a vortex and shortly afterwards Gulliver awakens to find himself captured by an army of little people lead by General Edward (Chris O’Dowd). Gulliver is taken to the tiny kingdom of Lilliput where he is at first viewed as a beast by all its people – including King Theodore (Billy Connolly) and Queen Isabelle (Catherine Tate) – aside from the caring Princess Mary (Emily Blunt). Gulliver is thrown into prison where he meets Horatio (Jason Segel), a commoner who has become imprisoned as a result of his attempt to court the Princess, and a friendship is formed. The people of Lilliput change their opinion of Gulliver, however, after he foils an attempted attack by their enemies and is hailed as a hero. Soon, he is made their new General and, seduced by his new found status, he begins to take advantage of their hospitality, much to the disdain of General Edward who turns to the side of Lilliput’s enemies. When Gulliver is exposed for who he really is and defeated he finds himself faced with a life changing choice – stay a little man or stand up and show that he really is big on the inside.

As expected following the poor quality 3D conversion seen in fellow 20th Century Fox Christmas blockbuster The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the 3D on display in Gulliver’s Travels really isn’t very good. Just as with that film it certainly doesn’t detract from the viewing experience, providing crystal clear picture quality with no loss in colour or brightness as a result of wearing the darkened glasses and there are some noticeable instances of 3D every now and then, such as the opening credits sequence in New York City, the fight with the robot and a few shots every now and then that do look almost fully three dimensional but these are rather few and far between and add nothing to the experience of the film, the 3D here definitely offering no value for money. Technically speaking the 3D may be of the same standard seen in Narnia but this is a film that doesn’t lend itself so well to the 3D medium, not being based so heavily around action and effects – i.e. the things that 3D tends to actually enhance on the screen – but rather comedy, some of the most noticeable 3D effects being in scenes where the 3D offers no real enhancement whatsoever, with the possible exception of the robot fight sequence which is, incidentally, rather reminiscent or something out of Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, the film that was embracing 3D before it became cool again. Considering that the 3D here isn’t very good – although technically not bad either I might note – it comes as something of a shock that the 3D is perhaps the best thing about the film…no kidding. If what you want from this film is spectacular visual effects you will be in for a huge disappointment. Most of the effects we get here are passable at best, often looking rather cheap and delivering nothing that will wow you. The same goes if you are looking for a film that is exciting as excitement is something that is also in short supply here. With the exception of the robot battle sequence this is a very action deficient film and what we get fails to be thrilling or spectacular, obviously making no use of the third dimension and being played entirely for laughs. This could be forgivable if the film actually generated the laughs but if you are looking for a comedy that truly delivers the goods in this arena you will also be sorely disappointed. The humour here is mostly very puerile and juvenile – Jack Black’s comedy style is love it or hate it at the best of times anyway so you should have a good idea of what to expect without even seeing the film – and the hit rate of the gags will be close to zero unless you are a very undemanding viewer, by which I mean you find the sight of Jack Black’s Gulliver urinating on a fire to put it out funny or the sight of cannonballs bouncing off his flabby shirtless body hilarious or him being given a wedgie by a robot side splitting or you are brought to laughter by the many lame and unwitty pop culture references and in-jokes. The humour here is aimed clearly at the very lowest common denominator and unless you are in this group – which the person behind me at the screening clearly was, given how loud she was laughing – you are unlikely to have much fun with this film. So much comedy talent is wasted here with pretty much everyone in the cast, with the possible exception of James Corden (star of my worst movie of last year – Lesbian Vampire Killers), having demonstrated considerable comic talent in the past but here rendered unfunny as the result of atrocious writing. Jokes – nonexistent. Dialogue – abysmal. And plot – what is that? There is very little evidence of an actual story we can care less about here and the tendency towards complete absurdity – the idea that the little people of Lilliput could build Gulliver a giant full size mansion is absolutely ridiculous – and convenient plot devices – the bad guy is only able to build a giant robot because on board the boat that Gulliver crashed in there is a magazine with an article on how to build your own robot – only serves to bring more attention to how bad the writing in general is. The cast make their best of the extremely bad script but, as well as not being very funny, their acting still comes off very bad here, even the actors who are generally very good faring badly. It’s certainly very hard to see why the currently in vogue Emily Blunt would drop out of Iron Man 2 (she was originally set to play Black Widow, the role that eventually went to Scarlett Johansson) to do this. One of the most likable performances actually comes from Amanda Peet, who is given nothing of real note to actually do. It’s almost embarrassing to see such genuine talent as what is on display here so completely wasted as rather than laughing I just found myself cringing and no more so than when at the end everyone breaks out into a musical number of War. Clearly director Rob Letterman, who did such a good job on last year’s Monsters Vs Aliens is considerably able at live action than he is at animation. Even by Jack Black’s own rather low standards, Gulliver’s Travels is a huge disappointment and while it may perhaps prove watchable in a watch for free on TV kind of way it is certainly not worth paying to see at a cinema, especially at the inflated 3D ticket price. Simply put, Gulliver’s Travels 2010 is a desecration of Jonathan Swift’s classic tale that might not just have him turning in his grave but also coming back from the dead to enact bloody vengeance on the people behind this monstrosity of a film.

————————————————————————————————————————————
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Facebook

Google

Twitter

We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.