Not Kansas

Rating: 10/10 (18 December 2009)

I have watched this both, uh, "regular" and in 3D. For anyone wondering, yes, the latter is worth it. This is the first time Cameron has a go at adventure, and me not particularly being a fan of the genre, I went to this because of him. I've yet to see him make a bad picture, and I've seen every fictional feature he's done, save for Titanic(yes, I know, I know, I will get to it) and Piranha II(which doesn't really count, seriously, just read the Trivia for it). They're not all perfect, but they're always good, engaging, well-made, entertaining, and funny. And that is the case here, as well. At two hours and 42 minutes or so, there is not a dull second to be found here. In fact, the pacing is nearly too fast, and, as has been pointed out, for as much character development as there is, a tad more(particularly for the villains; on a related note, Lang is bad-ass) would have been great. This is immensely exciting, and every single frame is involving. The humor is marvelous, fairly little of it falls flat or tries too hard, and Weaver is absolutely hilarious without being irritating. Everyone is well-cast, and the acting performances are flawless, with few exceptions. Worthington gets a proper chance to prove that he has talent, and he hits it out of the park. Ribisi is completely wasted in a one-dimensional role, and he does the best with what he's given to work with. He's asked to portray a jerk, and that he does. Really, really well. This is rather epic in scope, and it never loses the audience. For as much as there is to absorb in this, it is not excessive. The design is gorgeous, and this forest-world is astonishing to behold. It truly comes alive. At no point are the astonishing FX merely to appease viewers wanting to look at something purdy and turn off their brain, it all really affects us, and we feel as though we are running and flying right there with them. Is this revolutionary? Only as far as visual effects go. Others have already pointed it out; this is a lot like Dances with Wolves. And yes, in other ways, this is not the most original piece. Do those aspects make it a poor film? By no means. It is a fantastic message, and I don't see a problem with putting it back in theaters, presented in a package which is a true feast for the eyes, even if it hasn't been twenty years. There is some moderate language, plenty of intensity and a lot of mild violence. Almost everyone can get into this, the only age limit I'd put on it is no pre-teens, as it might be beyond what they can handle. I recommend this to everyone who is at least around 13, or mature for their age. If this turns out to be entirely different from your expectations, I have to ask... is this the first of Jim's movies you catch? 10/10