Jonathan Swift was and is still one of the most biting, brilliant, and widely read satirist the English language has ever known. Gulliver's Travels, widely regarded as Swift's masterpiece, at once satirizes European government, differences in religion, the corruptibility of man, and the battle between ancients and moderns. He does this while maintaining an exciting and incredibly interesting travel-story. Rob Letterman's “Gulliver's Travels” starring Jack Black is a far cry from Swift. So far in fact, I don't remember seeing his name credited in the end credits. I see it there on IMDb although not without clicking past the main page. This should definitely had a different title. This is an incredibly loose adaptation if an adaptation it is.
The story follows Lemuel Gulliver (Black), a slacker 30-something that still works in the mail room of a NYC newspaper. He has a desperate crush on the Travel editor Darcy (Amanda Peet). After he is passed up for a promotion by someone there only a day, Lemuel decides to talk to Darcy and, after lying about his travel experiences takes on an assignment to write about a trip to the Bermuda triangle. Nothing really unexpected happens when he does make it to the triangle, at least nothing unexpected for a movie that includes the Bermuda Triangle. Lemuel and his boat are swept into a huge water cyclone and transported to what appears to be another world. Washing up on the shore he is surprised and slightly terrified to realize he's the prisoner of an army of very tiny people: Lilliputians. Discovering a society like Lilliput is a big deal. Swift's Lemuel was an academic. Black's Lemuel is an idiot. You can imagine what a Lemuel like Jack Black might do in a situation like this. Pretty much what you'd expect is what happens.
I usually write more of a synopsis of the movies that I review. However, I honestly feel like I'm betraying my English major writing any more about the story of this rape of literature. True, there are funny moments in the movie, however they are few and far between. Gulliver's Travels is an excellent story because of the meaning behind the adventures. There is so much that Swift says between the words in his stories that to adequately adapt it into film would require a subtle and intelligent touch, neither of which are apparent in this film.
Whenever I watch a movie based off of a book, I try my very hardest to separate the book from the movie and look at the movie on its own terms. With that in mind, “Gulliver's Travels” is boring, childish, and predictable. The fact that they use such a source as Swift only highlights the childishness. Any kind of smart satirical comment on anything would have been a positive addition to the movie Unless the movie itself is a comment on the direction Hollywood is taking by rummaging through classics both in literature and film, there is little to redeem this movie. I like Jason Segel and Emily Blunt, and I hope this movie does little to hurt their career.
The only hope I have for this movie is that someone might want to read Swift's original after watching it. However, I have little hope for that. Unfortunately it is slightly entertaining, and I wasn't entirely depressed that I had seen it, however, there are a LOT of better movies out there to see. Also, if you want to see a good adaptation of Gulliver, check out the 1996 miniseries starring Ted Danson.
3/10
No comments:
Post a Comment