Review of Gulliver's Travels (1996)

Customer Ratings:
List Price: $9.98
Sale Price: $2.45
Today's Bonus: 75% Off

Contrary to popular belief, Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" was never intended to be simply a children's fantasy / fairy tale. Although the Lilliputans are cute as heck, this story has some serious overtones. As a matter of fact, although more subtle perhaps, there are aspects of this tale which are as dark and bitter as the commentaries on humankind written by the likes of Dostoevsky, Camus and Kafka. Jonathan Swift never was a very happy man.

This rendition of Swift's classic is, in a word, fabulous. It reaches to the heart of the message Swift was trying to convey while at the same time is accessible to all. It is also appropriate for a family to watch. I cannot remark enough on just how well done this film was; it would have been so easy to do a half-baked job and let it be yet another ambitious television movie that somehow went awry. I'm so glad that didn't happen here.

In truth, I have never cared too much for Ted Danson. However, in this film he delivers a surprisingly exceptional performance. So much so, in fact, that looking back I can't imagine anyone else as Gulliver. The rest of the cast did a superb job as well, and the inclusion of Peter O'Toole as the king of the Lilliputans was a great touch. (Then again, when can having Peter O'Toole in the cast of a movie ever HURT?) The direction and the way they chose to tell the story was wonderfully done. The soundtrack (written by Trevor Jones, who co-wrote the soundtrack to "The Last Of The Mohicans" among other things) was right on the $$$ for emotionally gripping scenes.

This is the type of ambitious, fervent film-making that studios can be proud of. If one Jonathan Swift were around today, I have no doubt that he could not and would not have asked for a better adaptation of his prose. A GREAT movie!

Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>

I recall being enormously impressed with this 2-part made-for-TV movie when it was first broadcast in 1996, and the intervening twelve years have not diminished it any. The production is fairly true to Swift's original, and contains many innovative and surprisingly-effective special effects (for the time). All of the cast members give boffo performances, particularly hammy Peter O'Toole in the role of a lifetime. But most impressive of all is the gentle and very sly interweaving of fantasy and insanity, where Lemuel Gulliver's state of mind continuously shifts between frames of reference both in size and veracity.

Swift's vulgar sense of humor is given free expression, and the biting satire of his political wit still rings familiar 270 years later. The film contains the free-wheeling giddiness of Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits" (1981) and the timeand frame-of-reference-shifting vertigo of "Smoke Signals" (1998). Tiny details and thrown-away background elements make it a production for rewarding repeated viewing.

In short this is a film of Brobdingnagian proportions which has received Lilliputian acclaim. This is a gap of Yahooian injustice.

Best Deals for Gulliver's Travels (1996)

But this Hallmark TV production was so exceptional, I felt five was the least this sucker deserved.

This was the first of an extended series of high-toned TV movies produced by Robert Halmi Sr. for NBC and ABC that had production values previously unseen on television. In art direction and general feel, this production of the Jonathan Swift classic resembled "Amadeus" more than it resembled "The Winds Of War" or "Mother, Can I Sleep With Danger?".

And considering the choice for the titular lead, comic actor and former model Ted Danson, it could have been a real disaster. It wasn't! The man acquits himself nicely as the somewhat incredulous Lemuel Gulliver, the hero of a satirical tale told by the very cynical Jonathan Swift, Britain's answer to Voltaire. (Actually, Voltaire was a good deal younger than Swift and "Gulliver's Travels" was written 32-33 years before "Candide", allegedly, but they _were_ contemporaries, and had even met!)

The story features very fanciful alllusions to pettiness, classic paranoia of the delusions of grandeur variety, pomposity, a favorite target of Swift's, and superciliousness. There's the tiny Lilliputians, their opposites, the Brondignagians, the equine Houiynihms, (who, I seem to remember, were supposed to resemble giraffes as well,) and many other fantastic characters, all rendered beautifully in this, the first of a distinguished list of first rate classical adaptations shown on NBC in the late 90s.

The cast list is unbelievable...people who had NEVER been on TV before, like Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, James Fox, Isabelle Huppert, Geraldine Chaplin (hello!), Shashi Kapoor and John Gielgud were sprinkled all through it. The sets are incredible and acting superb. If either this or the later "The Odyssey" had been released as feature films, they would have garnered significant praise for production values and acting, as well as fidelity to their sources, (despite some serious key scene omissions,) and probably would have generated respectable box office.

Special effects, cinematography and scene direction made this a good bellwether for a raft of films unlike any TV had ever seen since the fifties, when top quality productions of plays by well known playwrights peppered prime time schedules.

The general take on the story treats the main character, Lemuel Gulliver, as someone just about everybody, including his wife, for a while, thinks is certifiably insane, as he keeps rambling on about the fantastic lands and people he has supposedly seen. Most of the "real world" story, in fact, takes place in either an asylum, where he has been committed, or a courtroom, where his case is being heard.

It's obvious to the viewer, too, that Lemuel has dreamt all of this, because these places couldn't possibly exist. However, a real curve ball is thrown in the end when a truly diminutive sheep is found and provided as evidence that at least proves Lilliput existed.

Mary Steenbergen went on after this, ( a lot of the actors were recycled in future productions of this type by Halmi,) to portray the wife of Noah in a gawd-awful NBC production of "Noah's Ark", a production that mated the story of Lot and Sodom & Gomorah, (sans Abraham,) with the story of the flood. There was a ridiculous dream sequence inserted in this disaster that showed that Halmi's production crew was getting a WEE bit too satisfied with itself as Steenbergen, especially, spoke bubbleheaded lines that seemed WAY out of place for the setting of the story.

She should have stuck with 18th century satires! :-)

Honest reviews on Gulliver's Travels (1996)

The film is told by way of flash backs. Gulliver (Ted Danson) finds himself ashore in England after a harrowing nine year absence from home. Unfortunately, once back at home in England, he suffers from periodic flashbacks wherein he provides narratives about his adventures in Lilliput, Brobdingnag, on a flying island, and elsewhere. Also unfortunately, even his wife (Mary Steenbergen; wife in real life too) does not believe the contents of his flash-back narratives. For example, towards the end of the movie she is asked if she believes her husband. Instead of saying "no," she avoids the question by replying, "I believe in him."

Everybody will be able to enjoy the brightly colored pomp and fanfares found in the various kingdoms that are encountered during Gulliver's travels. The special effects are almost as good as those found in the early Star Wars movies. Unlike most adventure movies, the movie under review has a high degree of character development. The credentials of the actors, e.g., Peter O'Toole, speak for themselves. Excellent "character actors" are also found, such as the rustic wheat farmer who discovers Gulliver and displays him in a one-man circus. In addition to the special effects, the presence of a boy character (Gulliver's son) and a girl character (wheat farmer's daughter) enhance the attraction of the film for kids.

What the movie is really "about" is not tiny villagers, flying islands, or talking horses. What the movie is really about is certain bizarre aspects of the social order, found at the time of Swift's writing. For example, one goal of the Gulliver story was to protest the practice of selling (as opposed to voting) government positions. Therefore, it might be to the advantage of any viewer, or parent, to become familiar with the social/political customs prevalent at the time. A suitable book (which actually covers France, not England), is The French Revolution and Human Rights by Lynn Hunt (1996). As with the Gulliver movie, this book explains the existance of formalized upper and lower classes, and the practice of selling government positions.

Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for Gulliver's Travels (1996)

Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.

Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who learns history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.

Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this.