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.
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.