first, for its innocence. because it is a real animation film for children. sweet, lovely, testimony about a time . in same measure, it remains a delight. for a form of simplicity and beautiful songs and the wise use of Jonathan Swift classic novel. for a kind of romanticism, graceful, delicate, fragile and seductive. sure, it is easy to criticize it. if you ignore the period who defines it. because it is a manifesto against war but, in same sense, it is inspired use of childhood colors, flavors and joy. and this is the only detail important.

"Gulliver's Travels" was the second animated movie in Cinema's history, released only two years after Disney's milestone "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and right before the no-less iconic "Fantasia", "Pinocchio", "Dumbo" and "Bambi". It's easy to tell that the film was meant to counterattack Disney's growing control on the world of animation… and even easier to guess that it failed, overpowered by the mastery and incomparable magic reached by the Disney studios.Disney pushed the edge of the envelope so far, making "Gulliver's Travels" suffering from any comparison. Yet it would be very unfair to label the film as a wannabe Disney and let random trivia affect an opinion toward a film mostly made for children. My guess is whether for "Gulliver's Travels", "All Dogs Go to Heaven" or "Time Before Land", children wouldn't care much about the logo introducing the film or any technical consideration, no more anyway than the on-screen experience carried by the story, the images, the songs and naturally, the characters. On that level, "Gulliver's Travels" provides all the ingredients of the best animated classics, and it's a great entertainment for children.Now, allow me to wake up my inner child, the little one who saw the film for the first time on a crappy VHS and after that, during a nice Saturday in my uncle's home. Coincidentally, the same year, I read a comic-book involving another character who, after a stormy night, found himself on an island inhabited by little people. It was enough for me to believe that any person washed up on an island would become a giant. In my child's imagination, it had to do with drinking too much water or something like that. Pretty crazy, isn't it? But that's the way I looked at Gulliver and never thought the Lilliputians were meant to be 'little people'. Needless to say it didn't change the film's over-all effect.I remember I also loved the cute scene-stealing Gabby, the town crier, voiced by Pinto Colvig (Goofy's voice for the experts) who through his exuberance, seemed to embody the most endearing traits of the seven dwarfs. His desperate attempt to tell the Lilliputians that "there is a giant in the beach" was my favorite part, closely followed by Gulliver's struggle to get rid of the ropes fixing him on the wooden platform, quite impressive for its physical realism. And when I saw the film again, a few years ago, as soon as Gabby started to shout "All's Well", the whole music resurrected in my mind, and I could whistle the tune all the way. As for Gulliver's first stand, I understood why I was so intimidated by his look as a kid when I learned he was animated by rotoscoping, a process involving tracing live-action forage frame by frame, probably one of the film's strengths, proving that it wasn't trying to imitate Disney.Indeed, the rotoscoping creates the perfect distinction between Gulliver and the Lilliputians, and from my adult's second viewing, I remember I was in awe when I saw Gulliver's expression, noticing the screams of Gabby in the castle's dungeon and his bewildered eyes when he realized it was a little man, not to mention his suave and low-pitched voice, that's animation at best, and it's still strange that Disney never thought of that process. Disney improved the drawing of human features with time, making rotoscoping useless, but within the context of "Gulliver's Travels", it gives the film a touch of modernity that slightly surpasses "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". It also highlights one of the film's unavoidable flaws, the design of Prince David and Princess Glory, who're the only 'little creatures' that don't look comical, but still feel like archetypes of the handsome prince and beautiful princess.However, the film doesn't overuse the two lovers from rival islands and the two annoyingly cute little birds who seemed to be borrowed from the 'other studio', but cleverly uses them as the hostages of their islands' enmity, even more unbelievable since it started on a disagreement over the songs to perform at the wedding : "Faithful" or "Forever", not as memorable as "Some Day, My Prince Will Come" or even the catchy "All's Well" or "It's a Hap-Hap-Happy Day" that became standards of Paramount studios, but performed together, they give the film the typical classic touch, deserving their Oscar nomination for Best song. At the end, children have the songs, comic reliefs with Gabby and the three spies, and Gulliver has quite an authoritarian presence and a hidden charisma that perfectly contrast with the other characters and contradicts the golden rule of a memorable villain, established by Disney. Who needs a villain with such a larger-than-life hero … literally.Now, it's easy to let cynicism cloud the appreciation of the film. Some can picture the Fleisher executives telling their animators "Listen, guys, we didn't want to make a film, but Disney proved it could work, so let's make our 'Snow White'". Then, the classic tale of Gulliver from Jonathan Swift, allows them to use similar plot devices such as a realistic person surrounded by goofy little characters, a romance, cute animals, and nice songs. But despite these similarities, "Gulliver's Travels" stands as a classic on its own, and comparing to "Snow White" is like comparing between "Bambi" and "The Lion's King". And again, would children really do such comparisons? "Gulliver's Travels" deserves in my opinion, the term of an animated classic, even by Disney standards. Granted it doesn't have the status of Disney movies from the era, nor a brighter palette of colors, something that can even be pointed out by a kid, but the second animated feature of all time, the first from a non-Disney studio deserves some credit for its nice attempt to compete with the Goliath of animation. And as far as I am concerned, within its own simplicity, all's well in "Gulliver's Travels".

My assumption is that the Fleischer Studio was working on "Gulliver's Travels" for a very long time before it finally debuted in 1939. In fact, they were probably working on it long before the first full-length cartoon, "Snow White" debuted in 1938. I say this because had they seen just how inferior their product was in comparison, I doubt if the Fleischer project would have ever gotten off the ground. In every possible way, the story pales when viewed side by side with "Snow White". The story is dull, the characters dull, the animation dull and the songs, SUPER-dull in comparison. In fact, comparing the two full-length films is like comparing a Yugo to a BMW. Yes, they are both cars and have four wheels but after that, the differences are huge.The number one problem with "Gulliver's Travels" and other films made since on the same topic is that they usually take a minuscule portion of the famous Jonathan Swift novel and bring it to the screen. And, in the process, they focus on the obvious while ignoring all the metaphor and political allegory intended by the author. So, while Swift intended the Lillipution portion of his story to be an attack on the monarchy and other small-minded individuals, here in the Fleischer story it is just a superficial story--with TONS of Jeanette McDonald and Nelson Eddy sort of tunes tossed in to boot. As a result, it has no depth---none. And so you are left to appreciate the film only on a superficial level--and in this sense, it is also a dismal failure. Terrible songs, adequate animation and little in the way of character development, I could see why kids never grew to love this film like they grew to love "Snow White"...and why the Fleischers soon gave up on the idea of making more full-length films. At best, adequate.

I used to love this animated film version of Gulliver's Travels when I was a child, and hadn't seen it for almost twenty years. A few times over the last few years, I'd seen it on a shelf at video stores and thought about hiring it out, but had always moved on, which was unfortunate, because it's a genuinely lovely film. The animation can't be compared to Pixar or Dreamworks, as it was the standard of animation almost seventy years ago, but you can tell by watching it that the film was made with a lot of skill and love by the artists. The world created within the film seems a lot more innocent than today's fare due to the era in which it was created - you won't find any popular culture references like in Dreamworks' Shrek or Disney's Aladdin, which is a good thing, the story is able to stand on its own two feet.*Spoiler* I was surprised by how much a few of the comical moments in the film made me laugh - the part where the town-crier (Gabby) goes to the king's chambers and tells the king that the giant won't fit in his room, and the king's response? 'So, it's not good enough for him?', followed by the king seeing the giant for the first time, and immediately streaking back to his chambers, being pursued by a whirlwind of flying furniture that his wind motion has generated, I honestly couldn't stop laughing! Don't expect this film to be at the standard of today's animation, because you'll be disappointed. But if you view it as a children's film which was lovingly made and has excellent artwork considering that it was all hand-drawn, then you may very well like me find yourself watching it again two or three times within a week before reluctantly returning the copy to the video store. Highly recommended.