Primarily, it's too long and too deliberately paced: it drags: every scene seems the same: the same solemn, portentous tone; the same duration; and, with just a few exceptions, the same somber photography.
At the 1:21 mark I checked the time and almost quit; another hour to go! Sorry I didn't; nothing new in the last hour.
I think Hunnam is miscast here; he's good looking and heroic in a well-bred sort of way, but he doesn't convey the manic drive of the explorer.
The film needs more variety, more heat and wildness. It is hobbled by a preachy, patronizing, bloodless atmosphere, in that upperclass English way, doncha know? Even the Native Americans come across with a sort of Victorian decorum.
In the end, you have to ask: what is the story line? Is it "Truth to one's dream conquers physical hardships and transcends social and personal barriers, though at a severe cost"?
P.S: I enjoyed the director's commentary: he's very articulate and informative about the historical background and what he wanted to achieve in the movie.
I was intrigued by the subject because I was trafficked to Bolivia after I was abducted in the late 1950's. The movie was very well written. I found another piece of the puzzle to my past. The funding for Fawcett's last trip was an american-JD Rockefeller! I am still trying to find out who owned the mansion the children were at in the photo i retained from what seemed more like a retro concentration camp for bio-medical research. In the meeting with the National Geography Association, they referred to the Natives as Savages. They were cannibals, but there continues to be different forms of cannibalism up to this day(organ harvesting for one). They referred to the
Origin of the Species and the possibility that a culture existed long before they realized. On the first expedition, they wandered upon a rubber plantation. They contracted a native to guide them. He had lash wounds that indicated that he was a slave and mention his gratitude for being freed. The next visit, the rubber plantation did not exist. it was replaced by synthetic rubber made near the AG Farben plant at Auschwitz. There are questions about the validity of exploiting others for the sake of the advancement of 'civilization', and the intrinsic costs that have not been used in factoring the ultimate cost-the lives of many.
I think this would've been a far better film if they had actually stuck to the true story and not made up the ridiculous ending that they did. It is films like this that make me wonder what the filmmaker could've possibly been thinking. Both he and executive producer Brad Pitt should've been slapped with a wet fish to bring them to their senses.
It isn't a bad movie, but it is no where near as good as the book. The jungle scenes are "sanitized" and the character of Fawcett is far "nicer" than I think he really was (based on the book). I may have enjoyed this movie more if I had not read the book before seeing it.
I borrowed this DVD but knew nothing about, it is very popular on the hold waitlist and thought maybe it is because of the pretty boys (Charlie Hunnam and Robert Pattison are in it), but it is a very interesting story about Percy Fawcett a British explorer who went into the Amazon in the early 1900s looking for what he called the lost city of Z – an ancient metropolis established deep in the jungle which predated Europeans (Spanish Conquistadors) and was very sophisticated. He made several trips and some people claimed he was looking for the lost city of El Dorado. The movie plays him as a man interested in the jungle habitat and interested about the welfare of the native populations. His last trip was made with his eldest son and they disappear. No one is really sure what happened to them – did disease or wild animals take them? Did hostile native tribes kill them? Watch the film and see what you think – the film is entertaining if you enjoy adventure type of stories. Or read the book by David Grann. All I know is that I probably never want to explore in the jungle!
Read the book years ago and enjoyed it thoroughly. This movie does not compare. The movie has to much of the politics and not enough of the adventure.
My spouse liked this a bit more than I did, so maybe it just wasn't as much in my taste. I found it overly long and dragging in places. Also a bit too idealized. Then I found out it's from a novel, though the author used Fawcett's diaries for much of his research (that explains the idealism). The acting was pretty good; didn't even recognize Pattinson (which means he did a great job). Some beautiful scenery and direction seemed fine.
Got about halfway through it. For crying out loud doesn't anyone read Aristotle any more? the film's plot is chopped up into too many pieces to be an engaging item. I've salads that had more integrity than this shoddy effort at an entertaining film
Charlie Hunnam is always worth a watch and was extremely captivating as Percy Fawcett. Robert Pattinson was almost unrecognizable, even his voice sounded totally different. As Mr. Costin, Pattinson was a great partner to Hunnam. A great story of a man's life's ambition to discover a lost city in Amazonia. He returns multiple times to try to find this city and endures many types of hardships, even having to break his expeditions in order to fight in WWI. I was so disappointed though, after sitting through an amazing 2 hours and 20 minutes to not see the lost city of Z, but to also find that Percy Fawcett and his son abandoned their family and left their wife/mother waiting for word of them until her death in 1954..
Great adventure story - haunting, visceral, and thought-provoking. Fawcett was basically a real-life Indiana Jones obsessed with finding an El Dorado-like city in the Amazonia jungle. What could've been a cheesy Hollywood action pic becomes an intelligent exploration of not just one of the most remote and dangerous places on Earth, but also the psyche of the type of person who finds that kind of environment irresistible. Very reminiscent of Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. And it gives the natives the respect they deserve - Fawcett's belief is that an ancient civilization once existed there that equalled or perhaps even surpassed what was going on in Europe. Robert Pattinson - barely recognizable under a bushy beard - is Fawcett's quiet, enigmatic sidekick, and surprise, surprise! He steals the show. If you like a good old fashioned adventure yarn, you'll enjoy this movie.
It's an interesting story that strays a fair bit from the truth. It's not a bad movie but it's not terribly good one, either.
Mostly a confused mix of manly men running around being manly. Twenty armed men on horseback manage to kill a deer--so manly! Men go into the wilds of Amazon, which is nearly as brave as going into the gentleman's club and facing down people who know your father wasn't quite up to snuff. Women stay home, do all the research and make babies--but this enlightened movie points out that they didn't want to be barefoot and pregnant--very manly. These enlightened producers also tried to convince us slavery is bad--who knew? Mostly nonsense with a few brief glimpses of jungle.
Boring and uninspiring. If this is supposed to be a celebration of a great explorer, it came off exactly opposite. The story just seemed incoherent and worse, yawn-inducing. The score seemed to be especially effective in putting you to sleep. And some of the acting was just cringe-worthy; couldn't tell if it was the script or that the actors were just bad.
The Lost City of Z made me sad...sad because of the fact that this man was obsessed with going into the Amazon and trying to find a so-called lost ancient city. Also, because he left his family behind and in the end, he and his son appeared to have gotten themselves killed by the natives. The movie kept me engaged, so much so that I'm going to read the book. The author has a good style of writing that keeps me engaged. Over-all, I say to go ahead and watch this movie if you have 2 and 1/2 hours to kill.
An engaging biodrama of the heroics of the famed Amazon explorer who inspired Indiana Jones. However, other than the river scenes, the rest of the sets were not inspiring, i.e. should be extremely exhaustive to make passage ways in a wet hostile virgin jungle due to dense and tall tropical vegetation, not to mention those dangerous wildlife as poisonous snakes, monkeys, spiders and insect swarms. 3.5 star for the life story of Percy Fawcett but barely 2 stars for the main event, the quest for the lost city of Z.
I found this a bit slow, mostly because the film tries to pack in too much history and storyline that the film felt bogged down.
If Vanity Fair's contention that The Lost City of Z is one of 2017's best movies then this promises to be a lean year indeed! I would recommend either Aguirre the Wrath of God or Mountains of the Moon for those desirous of adventure movies in the wilds (both of these are available on TAL). At 140+ minutes The Lost City of Z is too long and ultimately left this viewer unsatisfied. Alas!
Waste your time watching this movie as he wasted his life going to the Amazon he deserted his wife deserted his family forced her to raise the children alone while the neighbors laughed at them and ridicule the children while their father was off seeking vain-glory it was truly a Fool's errand and 100 years later they found something that may have been something he wasn't a trained archaeologist he didn't know what he was looking for he then took his grown son and was lost in the Amazon and Hollywood want you to think that maybe him and his son found the city and if so then what his son married some native gal and raise the native family I doubt it how many stars how about -5 Stars a wasted life and a wasted movie vainglory what should you have done you should have stayed there and raised his family and going to regular guy I know you wanted metals and something special but it didn't happen
For most people, this will be a completely forgettable movie as, SPOILER, he never finds the lost city. Good acting and story but the fact that it all turns out to be a fool's errand was quite annoying.
Pretty much the definition of a 3 out of 5 star movie. Well made and functional on all counts, but there's nothing really here to make the movie stand out and stick with you.
This is an interesting film but at 2:20 it's too long, at least for a single sitting. Find a break point, about after his first return, and give it a day's rest. The inner family story was overdone, in my view, you can use your fast forward and easily understand the "drama".
I watched "The Lost City of Z" at the ByTowne Cinema. It was filmed in Ireland and in Colombia. Robert Pattinson is almost unrecognizable in his role as Henry Costin.