User Reviews

I've seen this many times over the years, and it's one of my absolute favorites. Some folks seem to think the Fleischers have to take a back seat to Disney.

NOT !!

They were, in many instances ( such as this one), far more inventive than Disney, and their work did not lose touch with common emotions,and had broad-based appeal to all ages, despite technical complexity.

Mickey Mouse will never go off the air. But neither will Betty Boop or Popeye.

In its own special way, "Gulliver's Travels" rivals the Disney features with its complexity, and its lack of laziness. If you really look at it, and keep in mind that this is animation done by hand...the old fashioned way, you will have a keener appreciation for the hard work that went into it. In those days, Disney and the Fleischers had to run the studios like a factory. It took teams of men in units and working shifts to concentrate on just the movements of the characters to make them appear lifelike (not like the computer animation of to-day, or even the TV animation of UPA or Hanna-Barbera in the 1950s).

"Roto-scoping", a process invented by the Fleischers, made the task that much more daunting. But the Fleischers had to be "perfectionists/masochists". The love of their craft shows in the movements, the backgrounds, the stories, and the music...not to mention the characters.

I am truly taken with the score. It is warm and dreamy and romantic....tearful to some. Some folks can't get with it, but it's a shame we don't don't hear much real music like that anymore in the mainstream.

Win Sharples and Victor Young did a very fine job...one of the best of All cartoon scores. Work on this film appears to have gotten Win Sharples the scoring job for the Fleischers, one he held down after the Fleischers were given the gate by Paramount, and which he continued to hold until Famous Studios was padlocked.

I can't recommend this feature highly enough. It's good clean fun, an accurate character study, terrific music, animation...the "whole nine".

The Fleischer studios were best known for their "Popeye" and "Superman" shorts, but the caliber of animation and story-telling in this 1939 feature-length film were on a par with Disney at that time. Had they not gone bankrupt in 1942, I suspect they would have surpassed Disney in many ways.

The idea here was to do Disney's "Snow White" one better, and they came very, very close. The restored edition on DVD shows the depth and beauty of the artwork to perfection. Fleischer was even perfecting a "stereo-optic" process to add 3-dimensional depth to their images which was used in this film to good effect. The music is typical of the period, rather sugary for today's tastes, and the "Gabby" character introduced in this movie isn't nearly as funny as they seemed to think at the time. (Two "Gabby" shorts are also included on the DVD; draw your own conclusions.)

I can only guess at the reactions of movie-goers who first saw this film in 1939, but I suspect that they were blown away by the sheer scope of the artwork. Gulliver is a "man-mountain" to the Lilliputians, and the scale and perspective between him and the "tiny people" is perfect throughout the film. The sequence where the tiny townspeople use a variety of skills to truss up the sleeping "giant" and cart him (literally!) to their king's palace is, by itself, worth the price of the entire movie.

The pacing is a bit slow during the first part of the film, but the filmmakers do a nice job of setting up the conflict between the two tiny kingdoms, which (true to the spirit of Swift's story) is caused by the pride of the rival kings. I would've preferred less "Gabby" in this sequence, but I understand they were trying to establish a new character to compete with the Mouse.

If you like good animation, you will enjoy this DVD.

My mother broght this for me on VHS when I was around six or seven years old.

I watched it so much I wore the tape out.

While shopping in the grocery store last week I happened upon this classic on DVD. I thought this would be a great way to let my children watch something that I used to watch as a tyke.

They loved it.

And I even at 27 years old found myself watching it with the same enthusiasm as I did when I was but a mere pup.

beatufil animation even in the computer age.

Rivals anything done today.

I remember watching very few movies and even less television as a child. This was one of the movies that I would check out periodically from the main branch of the library and I remember it being a very special treat. I had forgotten about it completely until recently I found it laying on a shelf in my local Wal Mart for a dollar. I bought it and watched it a few days later.

Looking at it through adult eyes, I saw that yes, the animation was poor, the singing extremely "60s choir" and not at all pleasant. The dialog and storyline were hardly complex but then again, what episode of "Barney" has complex dialog and storyline? It's a kids' movie and personally, I think kids would benefit far more from watching this than "Barney"!

Gulliver's Travels is the timeless story of a man who washes up on the shore of a country inhabited by little people. While the town crier strives to inform the king that "There's a giant on the beach!", the king is planning a fantastic wedding for his daughter, who is engaged to the prince of a neighboring country. A simple disagreement between the two monarchs leads to war and Gulliver looks to find a way to make peace between them. I laughed harder over this movie than I have over most of Disney's new fare.

It's not rocket science, but it's a nice way to spend 78 minutes, especially if you're only five years old or remember this movie from childhood.

Lemuel Gulliver, his ship wrecked in a fantastic storm, washes ashore on the island of Lilliput, inhabited by people so tiny that Gulliver is a giant in their eyes. Soon Gulliver finds himself entangled in a war between Lilliput and neighboring Blefuscu, all brought about because the two kings of these lands couldn't decide which song was to be sung at the wedding of their two beloved children, who happen to be deeply in love with one another.

The animation is often breathtaking here especially when it focuses on the fairytale like romance between Prince David and Princess Glory. Unfortunately we never fully learn their back story or get to see much of them at all except when it's absolutely necessary to advance the plot. The rotoscoping process used for Gulliver is also fascinating to watch both in terms of its historical significance and the interesting visual impression of realism it creates on screen.

However Jonathan Swift's satirical story is almost completely sacrificed here in favor of fairytale fantasy which arguably borrows more from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet than it does Gulliver's Travels. Its main focus also is on the wrong character, a town crier named Gabby who isn't particularly appealing to the viewer. Too many of the other far more interesting and fun characters get sacrificed to make room for him. Actually the best fun here comes the two kings and their interactions with one another not to mention the hijinks that goes on between Belfuscu spies Sneak, Snoop, and Snitch. Gulliver himself is reduced to friendly giant peacemaker. Prince David does get a great moment towards the end. Of course, it would have had far more impact of the viewer was actually made to care about him.

Max Fleischer studios put out this Disney rival in 1939 and it turns out to be a decent adaptation of the Jonathan Swift satire. The rotoscoped animation still looks cool to modern eyes and although dated I found myself enjoying the look of the animation, which I find a lot more enjoyable than the soulless modern trend for CGI animation. Although large chunks have been omitted from the book there's still plenty of meat here and the addition of some songs heavily indebted to SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARVES, of course.

This was the Fleisher Bros. one real effort to compete with Disney on Disney's own turf - "revising" a classic story for American tastes - and this in itself led to the film being dismissed by many critics as "imitative" of the Disney technique. This is not really fair, because the Fleisher's had a keen sense of the culture of the 1930s that the Disney people consciously decided to ignore - the depression; growing concern over the unstoppable march to the Second World War; an American pop-music culture adopting African-American motifs more and more; and a growing sense that working-together could provide us with a brighter future than rigorous individualism. All these elements of '30s American culture receive positive comment in the film, and thus make it more directly American than anything comparable by Disney.

But the film has real problems - these began virtually at the beginning of production, when the Fleisher's decided they would keep costs down, despite the ambitions of their project. This involved some shoddy dealings with their animation crews, and effacing creative credits other than their own whenever possible. Bad production strategy and tactics show forth in a certain blandness to the background of the animations (among the least interesting background art in the Fleisher catalog) as well as a curious lack of unity to the story - for instance, the three spies, while providing excellent comic relief, seem to come from some other film entirely, and the plot twist they provide could have been constructed along other, more innovative lines.

Still, there is certainly nothing objectionable here, the music is rather interesting, and the story is pretty upbeat - on the whole, it succeeds at entertaining, and is short enough not to be dragged down by its flaws.

Pretty good for children, and not all that bad for adults.

Just throw any negative comments you read here from IMD comment contributors in the wastebasket. I don't know what they were smoking.

Gulliver's Travels is beautiful! It is just as beautiful now as it was 60-plus years ago when it premiered, perhaps even moreso with the wonderful restoration we have now on DVD. This film doesn't have to compete with anything by Disney, and I don't see how this story has anything to do with Snow White. It stands on its own two feet as a captivating and charming classic story that children can enjoy over and over again, made when animation was really animation, and all the cells were handpainted by artists, instead of slopped together on boring, cookie-cutter computer models.

The storyline is perfect and has an anti-war undertone that was a bit daring for its time, made on the eve of World War Two. Even Disney's Snow White didn't have the guts to do that! So kudos to the Fleischer Brothers!

The songs are all wonderful and the soundtrack sounds marvellously enhanced on the new DVD version. "We're All Together Now", "All's Well", "It's A Hap Hap Happy Day", "Bluebirds In The Moonlight", and especially the haunting "Come Home Again, Sailor Man" are all perfect and flow into the action of the film, instead of being placed there with no relevance just to try and get a hit song. These sheet music pieces always sell well on Ebay, highlighting the fact quite clearly that this is one of the most beloved animation movies of all time.

If you rented this expecting a good adaptation of the classic novel, you will be sorely disappointed. It took a solid 40 minutes for Gulliver to even wake up and even then, this movie was all about cute songs and animation and nothing to do with the actual story of Gulliver's Travels. Rent it if you're into classic cartoons, but if looking for the novel on-screen, take a hard pass.

"Gulliver's Travels" is one of the great animated features of its' time. It was made as a response to Disney's wildly successful "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". Today, "Gulliver's Travels" is not accorded the same respect as the Disney pictures and is pretty much forgotten.

Why? This is as good as "Snow White". After all, it was made by the Fleischer brothers, contemporaries of animation and in my opinion, geniuses. They made the 17 classic Superman shorts that still spellbind people today, including myself. They made those classic 20 minute plus Popeye shorts. Betty Boop, Grampy, Screen Songs, Little Lulu, Gabby (spawned from this feature) the list goes on. Famous Studios was one of the most prolific animation studios of its' time.

While purists may complain that it doesn't stay faithful to the book, I think the changes are appropriate. What kid would understand Swift's social satire? What adult would really want to see a wholly faithful cartoon of the book. Besides, we have the 1996 epic film with Ted Danson to go to with accuracy.

The songs are surprisingly great considering how some can be overkill in a film like this. The characters are endearing and the story is solid and involving. What more could you ask for?

**** out of 4 stars

In 1699 sailor Lemuel Gulliver's ship is caught in a storm. Lemuel is knocked over board, and washes up on shore in the land of Lilliput, where he is a giant in comparison to the locals.

Princess Glory of Lilliput is set to marry Prince David of Blefuscu, but when their fathers argue over wedding details, war is declared between the two kingdoms. When King Little of Lilliput is told of the giant on the beach, he sees Gulliver as the perfect weapon to defeat King Bombo once and for all.

Released in 1939, just 2 years after Disney's "Snow White," Gulliver's Travels was the second feature length animation ever produced. The film makers, Dave and Max Fleischer are better known for their work on Popeye and Betty Boop. The brothers feature film making efforts were ill fated however, with Gulliver's Travels released at the beginning of the second world war and their follow up "Mr Bug Goes to Town" released just two days before the bombing of Pearl Harbour, were it not for these events, the work produced at Fleischer's studio may be as famous today as that of Walt Disney.

The film is an adaptation of the classic Novel by Jonathan Swift, intended as a biting social satire, Gulliver's adventures span four novels. Most well known is the first regarding his arrival in Lilliput, though Gulliver visits several other mysterious places. The book tells the story of a man finding himself in strange lands, while the film approaches the subject mostly from the Lilliputians point of view.

On its release the movie was nominated for 2 Oscars for its soundtrack (Best Animated Feature wasn't a category until 2001) The opening song "All's Well" is a catchy number with a great twist, however the tunes are very 'of their time' and may not prove popular with today's children.

The film has a certain innocence to it, it keeps a slow, steady pace rather than racing from one set action piece to another as modern films often do. There's a scene of perhaps 15 minutes without any talking as the Lilliputians tie up Gulliver and transport him, unconscious, back to the city and the King's palace. Their methods are ingenious and highly amusing feats of engineering. The extreme differences in size are used to great comic and visual effect, King Little dances with Gulliver's hand, three Lilliputians are trapped in Gulliver's pocket watch and he is able to put out a house fire by cupping water in his hands.

A charming film, wonderful for younger children, though perhaps a little gentle and slow for older ones. The film is also a great starting point to discussions about filmmaking and the evolution of animation.

America's second animated feature - for whatever that title may be worth. Although it dates from the days when animated films were still finding their feet it lacks the honour of being a pioneer. Not that being a pioneer makes a poor film any better. Honest viewers have to admit that "Snow White" lacks the assurance, and, bluntly, isn't as good, as Disney's five subsequent masterpieces ("Pinocchio", "Fantasia", "Dumbo", "Bambi"). But at least "Snow White" shows the results of years of consideration and more man-hours than I care to think about. In addition it has a genuine charm - due to the fact that even in 1935 Disney knew what he wanted. The Fleischer brothers just wanted to finish something, anything, before a ridiculous deadline.

Consequently their animators didn't have time to learn how to animate all the humans. (Disney's animators didn't quite get it either, but had the sense to limit themselves to three, only two of which were major characters.) The Lilliputians are the usual Fleischer creations, good enough in their way. The prince and the princess are awkward genuflections in the direction of Snow White. Gulliver himself is entirely rotoscoped. (That is to say, a live actor was filmed and the footage - down to the very wrinkles in his clothing - was traced over into drawings. I don't know who the actor was but it seems they told him to move as woodenly, and as little, as possible.) There is, to say the least, a serious mismatch of styles.

One might be willing to call these "technical flaws" and forget about them but there isn't really anything else to redeem the movie. The elements of the plot fit with each other as poorly as the drawings do. If pressed, I would describe "Gulliver's Travels" as a love story - a love story with singularly uninvolving protagonists and a good deal of excess "incident" - that is, padding. This film has all the clumsiness of a pioneer with none of the conviction.

While I'm sure 'Gulliver's Travels' is still perfect fare for the very young who don't yet know what great animation is, when viewed today it pales in comparison to what today's artists can do. And yet, there are some astonishingly impressive scenes early on in the film--especially those involving the Lilliputians and Gulliver's body stretched out on the beach. Their ingenious methods of strapping him down, etc. are delightful moments that make the first twenty-five minutes of the film rewarding to watch. After he is brought to the castle, the film loses all of that originality and charm and becomes second-rate in terms of animation and story. When you consider that this film was made hurriedly in order to compete with 'Snow White' the same year--and before anything like computer wizardry was possible--it's quite an achievement. As a child I was dazzled by it. Seen from the distance of time, it's quite another matter--but the early sequences are still moments to cherish. Victor Young's score is tuneful but undistinguished and does little to add true value.

This ¨Gulliver's travels¨(1939) by Max and Dave Fleischer , being an animated and musical retelling . An old and colorful family rendition of Jonathan Swift's classic as well as satiric novel written in 1726 . Fun family tale starred by Gulliver who during a storm he's washed ashore and discovers a fantasy land of small inhabitants called Lilliput in the East Indies where everyone is about two inches tall . Later on , he managed to convince them he's harmless and is accepted as one of their villagers , but their king wants to utilize him in war against his enemies . The Amazing Characters in Jonathan Swift's Immortal Fantasy Come To Life !. Out of the Book...On to the Screen . Nothing less than a miracle in motion pictures!. A world of tiny Lilliputans..... A world of real romance and adventure... A Merry, Mirthful Musical Miracle . The screen's mightiest musical entertainment! 25,000 lovable, laughable Lilliputians...8 smash song hits...and a million laughs!

This is an amusing musical adventure movie based on the classic novel about the adventures of Gulliver , an English sailor who is washed ashore in the land of Liliput . Adequate and spectacular art direction in animation style with spectacular and fantastic scenarios . Made and issued as an answer to Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Sentimental and evocative score by Victor Young , including a large number of maudlin songs . Professional though uneven direction by Max and Dave Fleischer Studio's , resulting to be just so-so and really average rendition loosely based of the famous Jonathan Swift satire . Rating : 5.5/10 .

Other versions about this immortal novel are the following ones : ¨The 3 Worlds of Gulliver¨ (1960) by Jack Sher with Kerwin Mathews , Lee Patterson , Grégoire Aslan ; ¨Gulliver's travels¨(1977) by Peter Hunt with Richard Harris , Catherine Schell , in which real life and cartoon mix in a three-dimensional tale ; TV adaptation (1995) by Charles Sturridge with Mary Steenburgen , Edward Fox , Peter O'Toole , Edward Woodward , Ned Beatty , in which Gulliver/Ted Danson is confined in Bedlam insane asylum after being lost at sea for eight years and he relates his odd adventures in the tiny land and among the giants and the silly and impractical intellectual of Laputa . And recent comical recounting (2010) by Rob Letterman with Jack Black , Jason Segel , Emily Blunt and Amanda Peet .

Paramount's animation department never got the same acclaim as Walt Disney's or Warner Brothers or MGM. But Max Fleischer who created the Popeye cartoons for Paramount made his bid for immortality with this animated version of Gulliver's Travels with radio announcer Sam Parker voicing Gulliver and radio singers Lanny Ross and Jessica Dragonette as the Blefuscuan prince and the Lilliputian princess who in fact are a love match and would like to rule peacefully if they're fathers can keep from reuniting old animosities.

In the Jonathan Swift book it was which end of the eggs do you crack, the big or the small end. Here it is the song with the same music and the same lyrics save for one word, Faithful for Lilliput and Forever for Blefuscu. Mankind does go to war stupidly over some trifles and sad to say still does.

The song sung by Ross and Dragonette received one of the two Oscar nominations for this film for Best Song. The songs were written by Paramount contract team, Leo Robin and Ralph Rainger. The scoring of the film netted the second Oscar nomination for Victor Young.

I have a feeling had this been done over at Disney or Warner Brothers some additional zip would have been in the film. It moves way too slowly. The closest treatment of Swift's satire to what he had in mind is probably in the film that Ted Danson did as Gulliver back in the Nineties.

I found this video at a thrift store and had actually never heard of this particular film, but thought it looked interesting. On the surface, it's pretty silly and pointless, but in context it totally makes sense. The movie contains obvious references to Disney, for instance, a female character who is dressed like Disney's Snow White makes a comical cameo appearance, and there's a pair of night watchmen who look strikingly like they could be the eighth and ninth dwarfs. There are also some references to 1930's pop culture, such as flapper dancing, and a reference to the popular jazz song "And it Comes Out Here" (and probably a lot of other things that I'm too young to recognize). I thought the "rotoscoping" was interesting, but seemed weird when mixed with the cartoony Popeye-ish miniature characters... probably an artistic choice to emphasize the difference between Gulliver and the little people, but it just seemed weird--- probably because I associate the rotoscoping effect with the things for which it was later used, like Monty Python.

This was one of the top 20 box office films of 1939 and even garnered two Academy Award nominations for Victor Young's Best Original Musical score (losing out to The Wizard of Oz) and Best Original song, Faithful Forever (losing out to Over the Rainbow from The wizard of Oz) so it was well received by the public of it's era but it isn't Disney. Paramount released this film from the Max Fleischer animation studio with the original concept for their popular Popeye to be Gulliver. It actually might have worked better. Instead they chose to use a process that the Fleischer's, Max and Dave invented called Rotoscope where they film an actor and trace his features into animation. Sam Parker is the voice and features of Gulliver. Longtime Disney Pinto Colvig, best known as the voice of Goofy is the voice of Gabby. Colvig had left Disney in 1937 and freelanced for Warner Brothers and worked for Fleischer as the voice of Bluto until 1941 when he returned to the Disney fold. Jack Mercer who was the longtime voice of Popeye is the voice of King Little. Lanny Ross is Prince David and Jessica Dragonette is Princess Glory. I've seen this many times and have always liked it but you are a curious observer to it and not drawn into the story like you would be to a Disney animated film. The story only deals with an interpretation of the first part of Jonathan Swift's classic story Gulliver's Travels. It's a nice movie but it lacks the charm of Disney. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

Talk about unforgettable music! I saw "Gulliver's Travels" forty years ago on Saturday-afternoon television, and I can STILL hum much of the Ralph Rainger/Leo Robin score, especially "Faithful", "Forever", "Faithful Forever", "We're All Together Now", and "Orchids in the Moonlight". What a songwriting team they were.

It's impossible to not compare "Gulliver's Travels", and its songs, to today's animated product, and it's sad when I try. The knack seems to be lost in all regards.

Lanny Ross and Jessica Dragonette, top radio stars of the period, actually enunciate the lyrics, and in tune, and with varying dynamics. What a relief to remember a time when that was mandatory in film music.

And we can also luxuriate in the well-drawn visuals, which allows the audience time to wallow in the rich colors and narrative (without the slam-bang short-attention-span cutting that sea-sickened me during "Atlantis" and similar Y2K material).

Give the youngsters a taste of the Golden Age of animation, songwriting and storytelling with "Gulliver's Travels", and take the time to enjoy it with them.

Highest recommendation. ****

No, this isn't Madagascar, Lion King or Shrek. Not even Peter Pan or Cinderella but this film demands the respect of something created in 1939. That's right '39! Not 1989, 1979 or even '69. I'm amazed and the amount of effort that must have gone into this animation.

I'm curious to know if Gulliver is rotoscoped. The little people are obviously traditional animation but there is definitely something different about Gulliver.

For an excellent verion of Gullivers Travels including all of his travels (not just Lilliput) catch the made for TV version starring Ted Danson.

I haven't read Jonathan Swift's story for a long time, but I remember loving it very much. This 1939 animated film mayn't be the best, definitive or the most faithful version, but can I be honest, it's actually my personal favourite. I don't know why, maybe because of nostalgia, this was a favourite of mine when I was a kid and I still love it. It is so warm, entertaining and beautiful, and might I say I consider it timeless too? The animation is actually really lovely, not tedious, undistinguished or dated as it has been criticised as. Instead it is beautiful and colourful. The colours are lavish, the backgrounds are mellow and the character designs are typical Fleischer, while the use of the Roto-Scope is incredibly effective.

I also love the story. As I have said it is not the most faithful to the original story, but it is still a great and sweet one. It is one that tells of love, hope, friendship, adventure and even humour, all those qualities that makes an animated film so great. In some ways the first half-hour is better than the rest of the film, however the film is full of charming moments such as when Gabby pleads not to be eaten, when Gulliver brings David and Glory together, "there's a giant on the beach", the interaction between the spies and of course my favourite the really touching ending. There is a bit of Romeo and Juliet too, with the idea of the feuding kingdoms and I think it works.

The script is really nice too, I admit I've heard better dialogue but there are much worse as well. Anything Gabby says cracks me up and Gulliver says some interesting things too. In fact, there is a perfect balance of humorous lines and touching sentiment. And I love the characters as well.

Gulliver apparently was made to look like a real person, a bold and ambitious move and one that pays off, is it me or isn't he handsome and I love his rich baritone voice, reminds me of Emile from South Pacific. The King of Lilliput is also a nice character, bumbling and humorous, same with Bombo who appears to be rather mean but there is a small part towards the beginning that suggests otherwise. David is someone we don't see much but he is very handsome with a kind presence with a voice that takes you to another world. My favourites though are Princess Glory and Gabby. Princess Glory is absolutely beautiful, and while she has a quivering vibrato(like Snow White does) she has a very limpid and pleasant voice. And what do I need to say about Gabby? There may be times in his cartoons where Gabby comes across as selfish, mean and unapologetic, but we see a different Gabby here. A somewhat funnier Gabby, and in some ways you feel sorry for him too.

The voice acting is also top notch for the time. Pinto Colvig, the wonderful voice actor he was, is great as Gabby, and Jack Mercer has fun as the King. Jessica Dragonette and Lanny Ross provide the voices of Glory and David beautifully, while Sam Parker is interesting as Gulliver. The pacing is brisk too, so the film never feels tedious or draggy, and while Gulliver's Travels is short it is very fulfilling.

But do you know what my favourite part was? It was the music. It's all an acquired taste of course, but I absolutely love this sort of music, the mellow and rich sounds that are almost reminiscent of Rodgers and Hammerstein. "All's Well" has had me humming the tune for days on end, "It's a Hap Hap Happy Day" is quirky and upbeat and "We're All Together Now" is wonderfully uplifting and memorable. "Come Home Again" is hauntingly beautiful, while "Forever" and "Faithful" are sweet and romantic.

In conclusion, beautiful, timeless and I think underrated film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Fleischer Studios went bankrupt after this film. It was penalized $350,000 for going over budget and Popeye cartoons had to be used to offset the losses. It's a shame because the animation is a delight.

Gulliver is a rotoscoped giant which works fairly well with the small animated characters. The rotoscoping really adds an eerie layer to the film.

Over all I liked the film - it was entertaining on an otherwise boring day.

Max Fleischer and his studio were always trying to push the envelope through innovation when making their animated films, whether by creating rotoscoping (animating live-action footage), the rotograph (mixing live-action with animation), or the stereoptical process (their version of the multiplane camera). So when they made the transition to feature length animation, one would expect greatness out of their ambitions. Unfortunately, due to the success of Disney's Snow White & the Seven Dwarves, Paramount gave the studio an 18 month production schedule and forced them under contract to make a film similar to the Disney classic. What followed was their 1939 adaptation of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, which despite doing well financially, was seen by many as a lackluster Disney knockoff, and I have to agree with the consensus on this one.

The biggest problem with Gulliver's Travels is that the story lacks much momentum. As it's about an explorer who helps a small kingdom that declared war after an argument over a wedding song, there isn't much weight or substance to be found. In fact, the whole movie feels like a short cartoon that was stretched to 76 minutes, not helped by how overly long some scenes go on for. Besides, the mere fact that the two kingdoms on the island declare war over a song makes this whole ordeal feel rather....well, ridiculous. There are some humorous moments here and there and the film certainly tries to add suspense with small fight scenes, but the stakes feel so underplayed and safe that it's hard to gain much excitement out of the already paper thin story.

If that's not enough, most of the characters aren't that memorable either. Gulliver is the giant human who wants to declare peace with the nations and that's it, the prince David and princess Glory have even less believable chemistry than Snow White and the prince (heck, they barely even speak, they mostly just sing), and Gabby is the comical town crier with a short and obnoxious temper. Although King Little and King Bombo have their hysterical rivalries and contrasting beliefs, there isn't much development given to them to really care for either of their sides, thus making them come off as the one dimensional opposing good and bad sides with nothing else. When Bombo's spies Sneak, Snoop and Snitch are the best characters in the film from their physical comedy and pratfalls alone, there's a problem.

Now where the film fails in both story and character, it does succeed in its animation quality....for the most part. It's amazing that the crew crafted this film under an 18 month period, because the settings, backgrounds and environments look stunning and gorgeous to the eyes from their structure and colors. The effects animation is also top notch as well, showing a lot of rich craftsmanship that can only be admired by cel animation fanatics. The character designs and animation of the villagers do resemble a more simplified and cartoony aesthetic common back in the day, and the animators certainly had fun bringing them to life. However, given that Gulliver was animated with the process of rotoscoping, his movements are so real that the contrast between him and the cartoony rest feels very jarring. Snow White may have been animated the same way, but Disney's animators were able to make her look more stylized and alternated with more imaginative movements, whereas Gulliver falls into the uncanny valley and comes off too real to be animated.

Lastly, if you're not convinced that this film is a Disney knockoff, then the musical numbers will certainly prove otherwise. I will admit, All's Well, It's a Hap-Hap-Happy Day and Bluebirds in the Moonlight are quite catchy and entertaining. They all have a very upbeat tempo and optimist nature that makes them hard not to sing along to....too bad the other songs sound way too much like diet Disney songs. Faithful/Forever just screams imitation of Snow White and the prince's song, and it becomes painfully obvious just how much Paramount demanded competition with Disney. The others aren't worth caring for, as they fade into the background and become boring and slow to even listen to.

I think Leonard Maltin was right, this film might've favored better with Popeye the sailor in the role of Gulliver. At least then, Maltin says, "we could have had some of Jack Mercer's mutterings to liven up some of the slow spots." Overall, while Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels does have mostly strong animation, some enjoyable songs, and bits of entertainment value here and there, it suffers from a weak story, underdeveloped characters and a failed attempt to copy the success of Disney's timeless classic Snow White & the Seven Dwarves. Considering that Walt Disney was Max Fleischer's biggest rival, it only makes the film all the more grating to even watch. I know some people have a soft spot for this movie, and by all means love it as much as you want, but this film only proves that not everything from the Golden Age of American Animation was....well, golden.