Shamus Culhane worked on this picture after leaving Disney and in his comments about it in his autobiography “Talking Mice and other People” regards it as somewhat disappointing.

This print seems to be missing a major scene near the beginning.

Fleischers’ second feature “Hoppity Goes to Town” is much more characteristic of them and far better. I hope it shows up here someday.

Someone below said Dave Fleischer died in WWII? No, he died in 1979 after a long career.

I am 65 years old (nee: 1939), at this writing, and Gulliver is the same age. I can remember my Mother taking me to the re-release of it when I was about 5 at the Fox Theater in Oakland, California. The Disney studios used the Multi-Plane camera to do “Snow White” 2 years earlier and the Flischers use the “Register and Shoot” method which is simple two Dimension.

The film was done by the Fleischer Brothers, Dave and Max, who also invented Popeye the Sailor and other memorable characters for Paramount (Famous Studios).

Another film they made was “Hoppity Goes to Town”. Dave was killed in World War 2 and the features ceased. It is said that had he lived, he would have given Walt Disney real competition. You have to remember that the film industry was only about 38 years old and sound came in in 1929 with optical tracks.

This has always been one of my favorite films, but as mentioned in another review, the song “Alls Well” is omitted. This comes in when the little guy discovers the “Giant on the Beach” and long before the two Kings are talking about the forthcoming wedding. This sequence is short but adds to the story and sets the mood of the character (Fear).

I have seen this film several times and have rented it for my kids to see and now my grandson who is just 2 years old.

Yes, Gulliver is a classic film and well worth adding to your collections. It has sustained over the years and hopefully for many more.

The first thing that stands out is the length of the scenes. Compared to recent Disney releases, such as “The Road to El Dorado”, where the length of the scenes are short, choppy and contain myriad angles and special effects, Gulliver’s Travels is far more sedate. Its various angle shots are few and the film’s scene length hints at a time when children and adults had more patience and longer attention spans.

Obviously there is little point in taking the time to download a film unless one can be assured of reasonable audio and visual quality – you want to be able to actually see what is being displayed on your screen and hear what is filtering through your speakers. By the same token, some degree of tolerance is to be expected from the viewer for the technological limitations of the era that, for example, invariably captured sound with a typical “monotonal pitched hollowness” so characteristic of the 1930′s microphone devices. Also, it is to be remembered that this film was designed for, and intended to be used in, a cinema theatre in front of a large audience on a large screen, at a time when colour was the exception and not the norm. While people might have been willing to forgive “colour ripples” (where the inking seems to crawl or ripple from one scene to the next as a consequence of each frame being painted by hand), modern audiences are less inclined to be patient or sympathetic with such things.

However, if these elements of production are taken into account in an intelligent and serious way, the sound quality and the visual quality of the download is remarkably good. At times it is difficult to distinguish precisely what is being said, particularly as animated films utilise, by definition, silly cartoon voices. But on the most part the dialogue is intelligible. There are no problems with the video component of the download, being mostly crisp and clear. I recommend the MPEG4 download as a good trade-off between size of the file and playback quality. (The MP4 codec is available for free on the internet, and is only about a megabyte in size).

As for the film itself, one of the most noticeble peculiarities is that the dialogue is comparitively sparse when considered against the backdrop of a modern cartoon or animated film, where the characters seem to talk non-stop.

Another interesting facet is to note the stong theatrical and operatic influence on the production, which is seen in several dancing scenes, musical scenes and other very lengthy scenes of action and movement. It is important to point out that these very lengthy scenes may serve to diminish viewer appreciation of the story as a whole. At the time “Gulliver’s Travels” was made, it was clearly envisioned that the audience would appreciate simply looking at amusing characters doing amusing things, which might not necessarily contribute to the overall plot.

The moral quality of the film is also interesting, being virtually obsolete by the standards of our age. For instance, it is assumed from the outset that marriage is the only acceptable relationship between men and women, that powerful giants ought not to abuse their influence and position, but ought to lower themselves to be subordinate to the interests of those weaker than themselves. The film also assumes that rivalry between nations is a natural condition but one which may be curbed and softened by the careful and thoughtful application of limited force. Certainly, more than anything else, this provides the viewer with a deep and meaningful insight into the pysche and social condition of the period.

As animated films go, it is not breakneck amusement with subtle intrigues as a plot device, and consequently it may not hold the viewer’s attention as readily as other films – especially at one scene where the Lilliputians are trussing Gulliver up with a complex arrangement of ropes and scaffolding, a process that seems to last for a terribly long time – but altogether it is a worthwhile acquisition that no serious collection of historical films can afford to lack.