jdhooker When was 8 or so, my dad bought this mini-series for me without completely knowing what it was. He knew the gist of course, tiny people island, big metaphorical plot, good self observing message, but this was quite more then that. It had great acting first off. The guy who plays Gulliver and the women who plays his wife are actually married in real life, so that kind of makes things cool. I also watched without understanding that it went beyond big guy in little world. It goes far beyond Lilleputt, into other uncharted regions, and undiscovered islands that are absolutely astounding-watch out for the big underlining meanings their awesome. I would recommend the viewer to consider this like going to theater- its not a big budget movie or anything-its a 90s mini series-buts a heck of 90s mini series!!!

Blueghost When I saw this movie first air I was captivated by the visuals and tale of Gulliver's actual travels. The one thing I really didn't get, and has always perplexed me, was the subplot about Gulliver returning as a nut case, afflicted with some form of shock or psychosis. I just didn't get it.And even watching it now, I still don't understand why Ted Dansen's character was turned into a raving lunatic as a narrative construct. It could have worked without this extraneous element. But, I better get to reviewing the film.The art direction of this Halmark production are unsurpassed. The SFX for the time were state of the art. We're with Gulliver and see his viewpoint as he interacts with tiny people, giants, kings, queens, intelligent animals and people who think they're intelligent but are blinded by their own intellect. Each social group he comes across is a commentary on human nature, and Dansen's character regales his caretakers with stories of his travels from which the commentary comes forth.As usual with Hallmark, little expense is spared to create a visual tapestry of 19th century England the strange continent to which Gulliver has travelled, and subsequently returned. Costumes, sets, locations, even the acting talent, is all of the first caliber for this very lavish production. Liberties are taken with the tale, as with all adaptations to the visual media from written work. Even so, it is a remarkable piece of work. The mental health theme is, to my way of thinking, very labored and doesn't add to the story, though it does seem to serve a purpose in bringing a romantic struggle to the original tale. Therefore the drama that might have been has been infused with a heightened sense of imperativeness, as we witness Gulliver struggle with his recent past. Does it work? It certainly brings an element of Gulliver questioning his social reality in England, but is, in my opinion, melodramatic, and just plain stupid. The social commentary could have just as easily been told without this aspect. We could have seen Gulliver come home, setup shop, be welcomed, and then tell of his adventures to people visiting his practice. But, it was not to be, and as I watched this very lush production, I kept asking myself why Hallmark approved of such a skewed tale. But, all we can do is shrug our shoulders, and accept the final product. Still, would it have hurt to have a normal narrative?All in all it is an impressive retelling of the classic tale, and all the social commentary is there, if not in point of fact made explicit to the viewing audience.Enjoy it for what it is.

Oldguypo8 This production was quite well done for a television original, providing a very appropriate original slant on Swift's work. To make the frame story work well the film begins with Gulliver arriving home. Everyone who has read the book knows that will happen anyway. The frame story of the book has Gulliver's crazed confusion in sections. For example, he is horrified that he will trample little people in England because he has just returned from a land of giants. But the film has all the book sections within one long voyage. When Gulliver narrates his travels the editing cuts from England to the travel are very effective. I confess I found them intrusive and irritating at first, then they became natural. By the end, moreover, they have become a welcome addition to the story. As he tells his adventures to a larger and larger audience, more and more people listen to his compelling fantasy even though they doubt its truth. For example, his hatred of filthy Yahoos and admiration of pure logic from the fourth section comes across well when he is defending his own sanity. The intercuts between events in England and similar events or scenes in the tale is very effective. For example, ripping the cloth from the table to suggest the motion of towing a group of ships is inspired filming. The addition of Gulliver's family threatened by the lecherous doctor works well. Swift only hints at this by having the long-suffering wife protest against further voyages. It becomes a natural part of this story. The casting and acting were competent throughout. Some roles were exemplary. Omar Sharif's mad magician is superb. O'Toole's little emperor is doddering delightfully toward senility. Many specific complaints made by other writers here strike me as simple personal preference, which, after all, is what we are about here. I read the abridged version several times a year from fourth grade on. I may have escaped the complete version until a college class but have read it a few times since. And I had to start it again as I began reading about this film. While the Danson version is superior to any previous film, it does not replace the book. However, I think it will bring many readers to the book. If you have not read the book, enjoy this movie then go to the source. If you appreciate the satire in it, find Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and his "Drapier's Letters." Both are satires attacking the wretched treatment of Ireland and the Irish during Swift's time. The drapier protests cheap, inflated copper coins being dumped on Ireland. These were Wood's light weight coinage, not good for face value in paying taxes and official debts. The outcry from Swift's satire caused the coins to be sent to another mistreated British territory, the American colonies. The universal satire in Swift's book and this movie just poke fun; they cannot change human nature. Give Danson's torturous experiences a chance. I think you will find them thought provoking and entertaining.

theglockner Not terrible, but mediocre. There's not much worse than a mediocre movie. You can laugh at a terrible movie, laugh at how badly it was made etc. Mediocre movies...you have to survive. this one made me cringe. the acting is really quite...mediocre. that stupid Brobdingnag girl...gaah! can't keep her southern accent away! "Chaaawclaate? Cahn ah have sume chaawclaate??" It also didn't stay true to the book at all. Gulliver wasn't telling the story in the book! He was living it! There are millions of unnecessary changes that only make it worse. Such as leaving out Swift's depiction of the morals of the different people. In the book, the Lilliputians, although appearing small and innocent are actually immoral and mean creatures. While the Brobdingnagians, seeming large and scary, are actually extremely kind and gentile. In the movie, the Brobdingnagians make Gulliver lie to and cheat people for their money. Nothing like that ever occurred in Swift's genius satire. Believe me, this movie is not worth your three hours.