The 3 Worlds of Gulliver (1960)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Absolutely the worst movie.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The 3 Worlds Of Gulliver I first saw on the big screen, and in color, and later saw it a few times on television, but not for a quarter century or so. So, I had to rewatch the 100 minute film. Kerwin Matthews, from The Seven Voyages Of Sinbad, does a surprisingly good job as the semi-zomboid, but buff, Dr. Lemuel Gulliver. He plays Gulliver as a real guy his genuineness makes up for his sometimes wooden reactions. June Thorburn plays his fiancée (then wife) Elizabeth. She's sufficient eye candy, and that alone is reason enough to justify her sweet insertion into the tale (she is not in Swift's novel). Gotta love her silly 'Don't ever wanna lay eyes on you again moment' after Gulliver objects to her naïve-te regarding the purchase of an old shack. None of the other actors who play any of the other characters leaves that great an impression, although the girl who plays Glumdalclitch (Sherry Alberoni, a child star on the original The Mickey Mouse Club on television) does a solid job with the little she's given. Her petulance and warmth make her the only semi-realistic character in all of Lilliput (land of the tint people) or Brobdingnag (land of the giants).This film features less of the stop motion photography Harryhausen was noted for, and more visual tricks involving split screens and traveling mattes, to make use of forced perspective in portraying Gulliver against his smaller and larger costars. Cinematographer Wilkie Cooper is credited in the film, but, realistically, he was, in effect, just a cameraman for Harryhausen.The story is a simplified version of the Swift novel. Gulliver reluctantly aids the King of Lilliput in his war against the rival state of Blefescu. The war is over which is the proper end of an egg to be opened. After Gulliver steals the Blefescuan Navy ships, the King is still not satisfied, and orders Gulliver to commit genocide on Blefescu. As a doctor and man of honor, he refuses, and is accused of treason. He then flees, and washes up on the shores of Brobdingnag, where Glumdalclitch finds him. The King of Brobdingnag offers to barter for him, then accepts the girl as his protector. Fortuitously, Elizabeth ended up there when she stowed aboard Gulliver's ship. He had been washed overboard to Lilliput, and the ship later destroyed. She seems to have been the lone survivor. The King's doctor accuses Gulliver of witchcraft after he saves the Queen's life with modern medicine, and the two lovers (married by the King) are persecuted. While the Lilliputians and Blefescuans are small in mind regarding politics, the Brobdingnagians are backwards regarding science and medicine. Glumdalclitch therefore rescues the couple, tosses them into a basket, and throws them down a river which washes out to the sea, where the two end up back in England at film's fade. Yes, there's some petty philosophizing by Gulliver, but it works in a campy way. Even the ending which questions whether or not the adventures were all a dream- while trite, is not too big a deal because the film handles everything in a lighthearted way. Had the film been more sober in its claims and portrayal, such an ending would have bombed, especially since it veers so far from the original.

This takes place in 1699 England. Dr. Gulliver (Kerwin Mathews) is poor and miserable in England. He takes an ocean voyage and is swept overboard during a storm. He comes to in a land named Lilliput which are all people shorter than him. He agrees to help the people of Lilliput to stop a war and build him a boat to get off. Then he ends up in another land where he's the small person and everybody else is a giant.I never read the book it was based on so I can't make comparisons...but the book was a political satire. Obviously this does not make it into the movie--this is aimed squarely at kids. The characterizations are broad (to say the least) and some of the characters act like total idiots (to amuse the kids). It also has simplistic (if amusing) remarks on how war is evil and people have to live for themselves. The story moves haltingly--it seems large chunks were either not filmed or left on the cutting room floor. Also Mathews breaks into song (!!!) at one point. It's more than a little silly but Mathews does have a great singing voice. Also the special effects by Ray Harryhausen aren't really that special--they're more than obvious.The film is very colorful and I was never really bored--most of the time though I was trying to figure out what was going on. Kerwin Mathews was easily one of the best-looking men ever to come out of Hollywood. His acting is just OK but really--the guy had to react to things that just weren't there. That couldn't have been easy. So the color and Mathews kept me entertained...but most adults will probably be thoroughly bored. I think kids will like it but I can only truthfully give it a 6.

The 3 Worlds of Gulliver could easily have been made into an adult satire as Jonathan Swift originally intended, but I daresay Columbia Pictures would not have realized too much box office had they gone that route.I saw it as a 13 year old back in the day in theater which is really the only way to appreciate the special effects of Ray Harryhausen. It's a wonderful film for a juvenile, but later in reading about the times one can appreciate what Swift was trying to say and the humorous way he said it.At the time Gulliver's Travels was originally written the age of the religious wars of the 17th century was coming to an end. Swift was a member of the Tory Party who sought to put an end to the War of Spanish Succession which the Whigs in power seemed to drag on and on. For the Whig view of the conflict I suggest strongly reading Winston Churchill's Life of Marlborough which equates the Tories of the day with the Baldwin-Chamberlain led Tories of the Thirties. Swift looked about and just saw a lot of carnage with power politics and religion all jumbled together so that you could not tell where one left off and the other began. Gulliver's Travels is how Swift saw the world of his day, religious intolerance and a budding imperialism. Swift was in fact an ordained minister who apparently had a vision that HIS way of worship was not necessarily THE way of worship for all. A novel idea back then, expressed in the war the Lilliputians and Blefescuans wage over which end of the egg to break. The Brobdingnag tale where Gulliver once a giant in Lilliput is now a small wee creature in a land of giants. And these giants think that because they're bigger and mightier they can rule over all. They see Gulliver and his bride as pets to kept as long as they amuse. It's a classic commentary against imperialism, unusual in its day and made Swift most unpopular in high places.These issues aren't for kids of the Saturday matinée crowd and Kerwin Matthews as Gulliver is playing for them. Matthews had a great career doing these fantasy things and he was real good in them. Maybe because he played the roles absolutely straight and we believed because he believed the part.Ray Harryhausen is at the top of his game and the film holds up very well. Even better in fact when you know the background from which the material came from.

Frankly, I didn't even expect a serious treatment of the novel - I thought it would do to Swift what other movies were doing to Verne and Wells at the time. And I could have lived with that perfectly. Unfortunately, "The 3 Worlds of Gulliver" does not achieve this level of entertainment. First of all, the actor playing Gulliver is a bore. Well, he probably would have gotten away with it hadn't his part been so badly written. The Gulliver character is not discovering anything in this movie - he is a patronizing and moralistic missionary man; basically just out there to explain the achievements of his 'modern' culture to the primitives. So, don't expect adventure, expect sermons.Secondly, the jokes aren't funny. They are all about how stupid foreign cultures are and how much they need a lesson in democracy. The only really funny character is a young gothic girl who has a short appearance towards the end of the movie (and the actress is not even credited!). Thirdly, the production values are poor. Ray Harryhausen worked on this - and it hardly shows. The cheesy special effects are OK with me, but the whole doesn't even look attractive in a nostalgic sort of way.Check this out if you must, maybe your kids will like it. But if you have respect for your children, show them the Max Fleischer cartoon. It's ten times funnier and far less pretentious.