The Lost City of Z (2016) User Reviews (328)

A great, enjoyable watch

[TreasureHunterGirl · 8/10 · 12 August 2019]

I really enjoyed this movie. I didn't know anything about the true story and had not read the book it is based on, so I don't have any complaints about accuracy and I didn't compare it to the book. So from the point of view of a simple movie watcher, it was a great movie.

The cast, locations, costumes, sets etc. were all great. The story was very enjoyable and it seemed quite authentic to its time period. With a running time of 2hr 20mins it could have ran the risk of being long-winded and boring, but it kept my interest the entire time. I didn't think it felt like a long movie. I'd only seen Charlie Hunnam and Robert Pattinson in a couple of movies before this, but I think they played quite different roles to usual and were both very good, as was the entire cast. If you're not going to get hung up on historical accuracy and just watch it as a movie than I highly recommend giving it a chance.

"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?"

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 24 January 2019]

While watching, I had no idea the film was based on a true story. That makes it more interesting in retrospect. Reading some of the trivia notes for the picture here on IMDb, I was intrigued by the fact that the novelist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle based his Professor Challenger character on that of Percy Fawcett. They in fact were good friends, and Doyle was present at the Royal Geographical Society lecture of February 13th, 1911, the one in which Fawcett described his expedition to Huanchaca Plateau in Bolivia. Fawcett's memoirs, which were posthumously published, spoke of the possibility of "monsters from the dawn of man's existence", an idea taken to heart by Doyle when he came up with his science-fiction novel titled "The Lost World". Quite coincidentally, the silent film version of "The Lost World" was released in 1925, the same year Fawcett went missing with his son in The Amazon.

What fascinates me about Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam) is that he was determined to return to the Amazon time and again following the first expedition to delineate the border between Bolivia and Brazil. Though that occurred over a span of twenty years, the man never lost his innate desire to find out the truth about a possible 'lost city' that might have existed deep in the jungle, pre-dating the arrival of white men who would doubt the ability of savages to create a civilization. The only disconnect in the story for me was when Fawcett encountered various tribes and attempted the use of Spanish to address the natives as 'amigos'. Barring contact with the outside world, the idea didn't make much sense to me, especially when he would occasionally get a response.

Beautifully filmed, the jungle scenes are breathtaking in scope, and painfully illustrate the types of hardship and discomfort Fawcett's expeditions would have to contend with. Determined to find glory for his home country of England, it was devastating to learn that his final foray into the Amazon was one of no return. The scene in which Fawcett and his son (Tom Holland) were taken captive by a tribe who saved them from an earlier fateful encounter eventually resolves to speculation about how they may have met their deaths. One would also have to speculate as to the veracity of that scene in which Mrs. Fawcett (Sienna Miller) returns the watch presented to her husband by the Royal Geographical Society. Despite the various anomalies, I enjoyed the story and found it a rather thought provoking one, soon to be a century since the tragic disappearance of Percy Fawcett.

Unusual Review Notes for an Unusual Movie

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 27 June 2017]

That the movie succeeds is a credit to Hunnam, who comes of age both literally and figuratively in this movie with a performance of great humility, charm, and grit. A far cry from his breakout role as a motorcycle gang leader, and an even further cry from his awkward performance in Guy Ritchie's unique (and hopefully never-to-be-repeated) view of young King Arthur as a slum thug.

Props to audiences worldwide who are connecting with a 2 hour and 20 minute opus that is as far from the new Transformers attempt as the earth is from the moon. Shows that quality film-making will always find an audience.

Would have been nice if the script were historically accurate but perhaps that is asking too much.

Ironically, because of the internet, the amount of solid new archaeological evidence being released each 24 hours in today's world would be the equivalent of ten years of time in Fawcett's era. In particular, I am referring to the material of late which suggests lost civilizations submerged in both the Atlantic and the Pacific over 12,000 years ago (see Graham Hancock's lectures for more, most free on Youtube) would explain how Brazil, centered between the two, could indeed have hosted a "lost city" which, thousands of years ago, entertained guests from both realms.

Finally -- for hard-core history buffs only -- the written diagrams preserved even today in the Archives of Rio de Janeiro ("Folio #512") which constitute the last known "communication" from the ACTUAL final, ill-fated, Fawcett expedition were discredited because "experts" of the day claimed they contained elements of different language roots, not one root, and hence "must" be fake. However, if indeed the area was a centerpoint between two now-lost civilizations originating in two different oceans, the multiple language roots would be expected and natural, and not an indication of fraud. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

Interesting portrait of a man, indeed but as a movie it almost lost me.

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 15 April 2017]

It's one of those labor of loves it seems as the film felt like it was more interested in making an artistic narrative than it was about making money. I can respect that, but it was a boring movie for that reason.

The Lost city of Z is about a British explorer named Percy Fawcett who while on a survey mission in the amazon discovers evidence that the "savages" once had a civilization the might even be older than the one he came from and spends his life trying to find it.

I loved Charlie Hunnam in it. Hands down, his most grown up acting performance, and really made Fawcett a compelling man to follow. In fact the whole cast was impressive with Sienna Miller as Fawcett's wife and Robert Patterson who I totally did not recognize under the bread as Fawcett's most trusted companion on his trips. Tom Holland is also in the movie as Fawcett's oldest son who joins him on his last journey to the amazon. Other people gave great performances, but these are the ones I knew by name, making it a pretty stellar cast for me.

While this movie does such a great job making Fawcett's life look fascinating,following him through his time with the army to his time as an explorer, I must admit that the slow burn of the narrative almost put me to sleep. It reminds me of another project Brad Pitt (who produced the movie) was evolved in, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Though the Lost City of Z is not as painfully slow (Notice the tile is half that of the Jesse James movie), the combination of the quiet tone and it's speed was not something I wanted to sit in a movie theater and watch. It's not that the movie is long, it's that it feels long, and it feels like something that the movie does on purpose.

I feel like the movie tries to gives us the realest accounts of a man's life as they can and I can respect that, but man, the two hours and thirty minutes this film comes in at was not easy at all to get through. That's just my warning.

http://cinemagardens.com

Could have been great

[rcarlsen-31328 · 30 June 2017]

I was so hyped for this movie after I read the book. What a let down , this should have been a throwback to the the classic Hollywood epics of the past. Instead it's kind of a bore, scenes set in jungle are amazing but there are too many slow drawn out parts that deal with drama back in civilization.

The acting by Hunnam is mediocre at best, Sienna Miller gives a great performance too bad she's not in more of the movie.

Overall it's not horrible but it's also just average

Disjointed, episodic, also uneven and overlong, filled with peaks and valleys.

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 6/10 · 30 April 2017]

Screenplay jumps from one segment of Fawcett's life to another, without a lot of connexion.

I didn't really object to this film's two and a half hours long run time, I just wish more time would have been spent in the jungles, searching for the lost city, because when they're in the jungles, the film works well, as unseen natives launch arrows at them, and their rocky trip through some rapids, and the film is well worth watching for those scenes. More of the screenstory should have dealt with this, as well as the jungle natives themselves.

Instead, the first fifteen minutes are unrelated hunting stories, and it later veers off into feminist ramblings for one lengthy scene, and a completely out of place, and needless sequence on a WWI battlefield, which seems to occupy about fifteen minutes of the run time as well, and for what purpose? It seems like the filmmakers had abandoned the premise of searching for a lost city, and padded the plot out with these scenes, and as a result, the search for a lost city only makes up about 40% of the movie.

There are occasional questions of whether the explorers are more savage than the natives, but even that doesn't seem to go anywhere, as the film will quickly go off into a different direction.

This is (or should be, anyway) a film where its setting and location should become a character in its own right (like the jungles in Predator, or the building in Die Hard, or the hotel in The Shining) but we see so little of it that it could just simply be an overgrown section of land in Hawai'i.

Where No Man Has Gone Before

[ThomasDrufke · 6/10 · 29 April 2017]

It's very rare in 2017 Hollywood that we get an epic like The Lost City of Z. Albeit noticeably flawed in many aspects, this film hearkens back to the days where exploration epics were a normalcy in the filmmaking world.

The strengths of The Lost City of Z lie with its unique journey the protagonist takes, and not necessarily with the protagonist or the film itself. What I mean by that is that I think the actual story the film is based on is more interesting than how the film portrays it. Sometimes biopics that span a great length of time are difficult to effectively portray on the big screen. Because 'Z' takes place over the course of roughly 20 years, it becomes increasingly tough to grapple onto something worth enjoying. Every time one of his explorations seems to get interesting, we get interrupted by his abrupt return to civilization and more family drama. Whether or not that's how the true story of Percy Fawcett went is irrelevant. Sometimes it takes some tweaking to make for an entertaining feature length film.

Charlie Hunnam plays Fawcett, an explorer who seeks glory in finding a mysterious city of people which has "never been touched by a white man". Fawcett himself is an interesting character, especially when the film dives into his own psychology and obsession over 'Z'. He's a lot like Matthew McConaughey's character from Interstellar, always searching for something nobody has seen before even if means leaving his family for years at a time. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Fawcett isn't very likable. We constantly see him leave his family even though, with the exception of war, he has a choice in the matter.

There is something to admire about someone, or in this case multiple people, who keep searching for the dreams no matter the cost. Fawcett, along with a few consistent compadres, go on dangerous expeditions through the jungle to find what they think is a real lost city. The aspects of the film I enjoy the most are watching men go through hardships in search of something they truly care about. In this regard, the film is a fascinating exploration physically and mentally.

Aside from Hunnam, there are a few great performances from Sienna Miller as Nina Fawcett, Robert Pattinson as Henry Costin, and Tom Holland as Jack Fawcett. All elevating each scene they are in and making the journey worth it for sure. There's a lot this film does well, including making a lasting impact on viewers minds in terms of exploration, but the writing can be a little bit more polished with certain changes made to fit a movie and not just serve the story properly. There's a happy medium there that I think could have benefited the final product.

+The Story

+Brings back a lost genre

-Uncharismatic characters

-Uneven script

6.7/10

An enticing quest but without clear narrative focus

[shakercoola · 6/10 · 11 March 2019]

An American biographical adventure; A story about a man who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. He was aiming for a city he called 'Z'. It's a film which hearkens back to classic exploration epics of the mid 20th Century. Charlie Hunnam gives a well measured performance as the British geographer, Army Major, and explorer Percy Fawcett. The film centres on passion and determination and obsession and escape but also the losses suffered by leaving the home - his growing family and dutiful wife - in service of fantastical dreams. It is a biopic by numbers and this is a troublesome area because Fawcett and his story have many critics. Nonetheless it is a stately adventure despite the slow pacing.

Civilisations Lost and Found

[TonyAtTheMovies · 8/10 · 12 June 2020]

Having not known quite what to expect from this movie - had it been made anytime before 30 years ago that might have been easier - I actually found it fascinating, and it held my attention the whole way through. Based on a true story, it paints a vivid picture not only of the Amazonian region which Percy Fawcett and his men set out to explore, but also of the Western society they came from, but in a fairly balanced way - this didn't feel like another case of 'weren't Western white people before 1980 all absolutely dreadful' but rather a portrayal of a society with its own beliefs and attitudes (as all societies have) faced with the prospect of discovering another, much older, civilisation.

This wouldn't be a film for fans of action movies as such. Instead it offers a fascinating study of place, society and the often slow and hazardous process of discovery and its effect on the people - all of the people - involved.

beautiful but meanders

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 20 January 2018]

It's 1905 Ireland. Major Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam) with no medals is snubbed for his unfortunate choice of ancestors. He eagerly accepts the Royal Geographical Society's mission to map a river in the amazon to calm the near-warring Bolivia and Brazil. He leaves behind his wife Nina (Sienna Miller) and young children. He is joined by Henry Costin (Robert Pattinson). The group guided by a former slave native finds evidences of civilization in the jungle. Percy returns to ridicule for his claim of a lost city of Z. James Murray (Angus Macfadyen) is one of his few supporters who joins him on the next expedition. Murray turns out to be an incompetent coward who sabotages the quest and demeans him upon return to London. He is dismissed by everyone including his angry son Jack. After being temporarily blinded by a heroic action in WWI, he returns to England vindicated and his son Jack (Tom Holland) convinces him to lead one final quest for his lost amazonian city.

There are some beautiful scenes. The quest is a personal epic. The acting is fine. At its best, the river journey is Apocalypse Now. The story does meander since there are actually three journeys. The back and forth keeps the flow disjointed. My favorite parts are all in the Amazon. The native in the first quest is compelling. The second is Murray's cowardice. The third is the native warriors. I almost wish for a fictionalization with one simple journey.

Massive let down

[peter-stead-740-486963 · 3/10 · 28 March 2017]

It's a really good example of how a terrible script can completely destroy a movie. There are too many things which make no sense to list, but the key issues are:

For a film that seems so keen to virtue-signal about white ignorance and racism, it does nothing to explain to us Fawcett's theories about the people of Z. Who were they? How did their civilisation operate? Why did they disappear? Surely these explorers would have built up far more of a picture from the surrounding tribes, artefacts, and previous finds. There is a tiny smattering of these things, but in 2h21ms nowhere near enough to build up a mythology. Therefore it's difficult to see why this obsesses Fawcett. You literally get more detail from the quests in the Indiana Jones movies.

Instead it focuses relentlessly on the most tedious and dangerous aspects of the trips, their suffering, or switches back to London with almost every old man of course a stiff- upper-lip racist and sexist cliché. Imagine a more insidious General Melchett from Blackadder Goes Forth and you won't be far off.

There is an extremely cringey attempt to insert a modern feminist perspective. At one stage, Nina wants to go on the expedition. Her reasoning? She found an important document relating to it. This apparently makes her equal to Fawcett's many years of soldiering and survival skills. It's clumsy and anachronistic. The trip could very well kill them both and so would leave their children orphaned. Surely a more logical argument would be whether he has to go at all. He is, after all, a father, and has responsibilities at home.

The First World War section adds absolutely nothing and captures none of the horror of the battlefield. It's all just tally-ho chaps, almost Hallmark channel-like. Just awful.

Sienna Miller, Robert Pattinson and especially Charlie Hunnam wring what they can from such a sparsely-written script and should be commended for that, which is why this isn't a 1.

Don't be fooled by the title - it's not about a lost city or even a lost man. It's a lazy and pretentious destruction of what could have been a thrilling find.

An art movie more than a conventional adventure epic...and a very fine one.

[MOscarbradley · 9/10 · 27 May 2018]

Far from a conventional 'jungle adventure' James Gray's outstanding "The Lost City of Z" has more in common with the films of Werner Herzog than "The Mission". Bases on real events it's the story of explorer Percival Fawcett's search for the lost city of the title deep in the Bolivian jungle. It is a long, slow film more concerned with the psychology of its characters than their actions and it's very well played by Charlie Hunnam, (a revelation), Robert Pattinson and, in a major supporting turn, Angus MacFadyen. It's also stunningly shot by the great Darius Khondji and superbly written and directed by Gray, moving away here from the gritty confines of the American city where we usually find him. It wasn't really a commercial success but then in this day of action superheroes did anyone really think it would be. This is an art movie posing as an adventure epic and doing it very well indeed.

Ignore the bad reviews

[chrismonkee · 7/10 · 18 September 2019]

It's good. True story as well.

The book is even better. Buy the book on Amazon now. Go on, buy it right now. Tell them I sent you.

Peace.

Someone managed to make the exploration of the Amazon incredibly dull.

[martin-807-452270 · 2/10 · 29 March 2017]

*****Spoiler Alert**** I was really looking forward to this film, as how can the exploration of the Amazon be anything other than amazing? Well I was wrong, this was utterly boring, excruciatingly dull and just plain awful. I can only give it a 1 out of 5 rating. After the first 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and wondering if I should bother, as I had more important things to do, like clean the oven. How can anyone make the exploration of the Amazon so tedious? This could have been like real life Indiana Jones! There was absolutely no sense of danger at any point, just flat as a very thin pancake. The film should really be re-named The Lost City of Zzzzzzz.

It was a truly odd film, this bloke gets asked to go Bolivia for the Royal Society to do some maps and stuff, doesn't want to go, But they offer him a shiny medal so he goes (leaving his wife and new born son), has a rubbish time, comes back to London, goes back to the Amazon (leaving wife, and second son), comes back to London, Goes to France for WW1, comes back to London and then goes to Amazonia again... For Heaven's sake man - just choose one! I shouted through gritted teeth.

It's terribly directed and the cinematography is really bad (and I say this as a trained cinematographer). It's so dark that I actually wondered if the bulb in the projector was bust, but then it would cut to a scene outside in a garden and it would (almost) be correctly exposed. Some interiors were so badly lit I actually couldn't see who was speaking, and a huge number of shots were so out of focus I again wondered if we were watching a dud print.

There was a really important (cough) scene with two blokes on a train having a chat about something. Now one bloke has a beard and one has a moustache, so that helps tell them apart in the dark, but for some reason we are looking at them over their shoulders and not 'at' them, and Mr Moustache-bloke turns away from camera (probably trying this 'acting' thing) and I can no longer see his face just his ear. Now it's so dark I can't tell if he has a nice ear, if it's too big or too small or if it sticks out, and By God this must be damn boring if I'm wondering about the relative angles of ear projection rather than what the hell is going on.

The framing is really odd, and the eye lines are all over the place, so I don't know who is speaking to who, and often the camera operator decided to be above or below eye-lines, making my head ache as it was so badly composed.

The first three scenes of the film could all be cut, or would serve better as flash backs, as they just don't go anywhere at all. OK a bit of back story, but we know the Major wants a medal with a single line of dialogue, not three flipping scenes as dull as a rainy Sunday.

The main character Major Blokey-pants was utterly dull and his motivation was all rather thrust down out throats, and I didn't care for him. Only after 90 minutes or so did his wife start talking about some bloke names Percy and I thought "Who is Percy?" and I realised it was the main character, who had been referred to as Major something or other (I forget) for the entire rest of the movie.

Couple of massive plot holes: they were in the middle of nowhere running low on food on a raft made of branches saying how no white man had ever been here before and clearly in the background is a bloke on a horse in a field. I kept thinking they would pan around and explain but they never did. I also wondered if they were travelling to seek the source of the river, how they were just floating along and not constantly rowing, as a river flows away from the source to the ocean.

They have been travelling down river for a year apparently and it all goes wrong and they decide to send this bloke back on a horse. Where did this horse come from?

And they are in the middle of the river all weak and dying and the other bloke (Beard-o) says to the main bloke "and here's a letter from you wife." FTAF??? Where had he been keeping that then?

When we finally get to the WW1 scenes the dead bodies in the trenches are clearly shop window dummies and for a film that is this expensive that is just rubbish. These scenes add absolutely nothing to the film, we could just have had a Voice over which went "After the first world war, where I saw active service in France and that bloke I knew who was on the trip to Bolivia with me, you know, thingie, was killed, I returned to London..."

Eventually we get back to Amazonia for the third time and Major Blokey-pants has bought his son with him this time Blokey-Pants minor, and they bang on about finding this lost city of Zzzz but never does he put forward a reason why he thinks there might be a lost city or indeed, why he is so keen to find it, he just wants to find it. Who were these people? Why did their civilisation die out? what was their favourite past time? Did they like cheese? None of these questions were answered or indeed even asked.

Compare this film to the savage Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1972 Herzog) the bonkers Fitzcaraldo (1982 Herzog) or even the rather depressing The Mission (1986 Joffe) and you will be sorely disappointed.

The film takes place in the 20th century, where British explorer Percy Fawcett journeys into the Amazon to discover evidence of a previously unknown civilization.

[milk-carton-reviews · 1 May 2017]

I'm sad to say that I was disappointed by this film in almost every aspect. It seems to me that the biggest problem it has is the pacing. For a two and a half hour long film, pacing is important to keep the viewers engaged and this movie just gets it completely wrong. It feels like three movies clumsily stuffed into one, and as if that wasn't enough, it adds a bunch of utterly irrelevant scenes which could have easily been cut out of the movie entirely. I, for one, was expecting to see at least some beautiful cinematography, but the movie fails to deliver even in the aesthetic aspect. I was also expecting to see a lot more of the actual journey to the Amazon, but instead we got scene after boring scene in England, where nothing of importance really happens. After about an hour and a half I was left wondering how so many critics found this movie watchable, desperately trying not to fall asleep. To make matters even worse, Charlie Hunnam delivers an awful performance and makes for an overall uninteresting lead. Surprisingly, the only performance worth watching in this film was, out of all people, Robert Pattinson. I'm certainly glad he's moving away from his Twilight years and I hope to see him in more roles like this one in the future. Overall, this was a forgettable, boring, mess of a movie.

Great watch for people who are into explorer movies

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 6 May 2017]

"The Lost City of Z" is an American movie from 2016 and this one is the newest work by writer and director James Gray. This time he did not collaborate with Joaquin Phoenix, but despite being a great Phoenix fan I must say this movie does not need him to be a success. It runs for a really long 2 hours and 20 minutes, but time pretty much flew by and the movie never dragged. This film is about the life and work of British explorer Percy Fawcett played by Charlie Hunnam ("Sons of Anarchy"). I must say I have not come across anything (memorable) by this actor and saw little in him beyond a hunky physicality, but he played his part well here and is one of the main reasons why it all worked out so well. Robert Pattinson ("Twilight") plays one of the biggest supporting parts and he is surely the biggest name attached to the project. The likes of Sienna Miller, Tom Holland and perhaps Angus Macfadyen will be known to film buffs too though. And I see that western legends Franco Nero has a small part in it too. Shame I did not recognize him.

Anyway, the best aspect of this film is the story/writing though. This already starts with the character of Percy Fawcett, who was entirely unknown to me before seeing this movie, but he really should not have been. They made a good choice I guess in focusing not on just one of his many journeys, but including several as at this runtime, 2 hours, exclusively in the jungle may have been too much. But the path they took made it interesting too as we do not only learn a lot about the central character's family, but also for example about his time with the military. And these parts weren't worse than the ones in the jungle. Not at all. Like I said, they added a nice mentality to the entire project and kept it from having lengths. The ending is also a nice addition because you never knew what to expect and if it takes the happy route or not as you (or I) were not aware of the central character's fate eventually. In terms of the visual side (costumes, sets, cinematography) there is nothing wrong either and it's a solid job no matter which component we are talking about.

I can see why this film garnered a good deal of awards attention already despite how new it all is. At least here in Germany. I really cannot think of any weak component here and the only reason why I do not give it a higher rating is probably because the genre itself is not really one that appeals to me that much. But those who like adventure films will have a great time watching for sure. The real life references, even if a lot has been changed for dramatic purpose (like for example that in the end it's just the two of them), make it even more interesting. Tough to find flaws. I think I could have done without the Sienna Miller (she still was really good in her scenes) epilogue eventually, even if it includes an important reference to the real Percy Fawcett too, but I still may have preferred the film to end in the jungle somehow. I particularly recommend this movie to those who for example like "Master and Commander", but even those who have little connection to the genre like myself can enjoy it for what it is. I very much recommend checking it out.

Realistic account of exploring the deep regions of Amazonia

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 21 December 2020]

In the early 20th century, Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam) travels to the Amazon basin to survey the border of Bolivia and Brazil. He discovers evidence of an ancient jungle civilization and becomes obsessed with discovering the truth. Robert Pattinson plays his associate and Angus Macfadyen a member of one of the expeditions. Sienna Miller is on hand as Fawcett's wife back in England.

"The Lost City of Z" (2016) is based on the real-life account, although Fawcett's eight expeditions into the Amazon are truncated to three in the movie. Some things are naturally reminiscent of "Fitzcarraldo" (1982). While I like that picture a little more, this one ain't no slouch if you're in the mood for a realistic biographical adventure. Being based on a true story, don't expect any goofy Indiana Jones shenanigans, although there are a couple of scenes evocative of the opening jungle sequence in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981).

The film runs 2 hours, 21 minutes, and was shot in Northern Ireland and Magdalena, Colombia; the river is Rio Don Diego.

GRADE: B

An ok Sunday movie

[MickeyTheConstant · 6/10 · 26 March 2019]

This film was ok. It was a pleasant movie to watch on a Sunday afternoon. Not very taxing. I found it initially hard to like the hero. He wasn't a great family man and just something wound me up but as the film moved on his behaviour and attitude changed and you wanted him to succeed. Although based on a real person the ending was quite ambiguous and left open to interpretation. It really was just ok, not the worse movie I have seen.

Fascinating journey of an explorer but kind of depressing

[phd_travel · 6/10 · 17 May 2017]

The story of an early 20th Century British explorer in the Amazon with 8 lives - not 9 as we will find out.

The cast is good Sienna Miller as a supportive wife and dumb mother, Robert Pattinson uglied up in a supporting role - quite convincing, and Charlie Hunnam as the explorer who can't seem to survive without danger. His journeys are quite scary but what did he really achieve? Then fighting in WW1 trenches after that is just too much.

OMG the ending is so depressing. Father and son dumb and dumber. Both of them being cannibalized or worse? With the advent of airplanes they didn't need to go by land. What's wrong with the 2 of them? And to go alone at the end? It's good they had an unhappy ending because it's realistic but be warned it's kind of depressing.

Don't know if it was the cinema where I saw this but the cinematography seemed a bit dark.

Biopic of the end of empire

[robbierunciman-1 · 8/10 · 26 March 2017]

I enjoyed the movie - it was a bit paint by numbers but it covered a huge area of his life and his motivations, it was also a story of decline, the derring-do of the British empire and particular type of hero. I think that he has been overlooked because he 'failed' but the film shows how he respected the cultures he found, in contrast to the other members of RGS. The class-based snobbery of the period is also well represented. Highly watchable and recommended.

Nothing extraordinary, but still enjoyable to a degree

[gyappu · 7/10 · 30 June 2017]

When I first heard of this movie, I was intrigued by the premise. I knew it wouldn't be an exciting ride of non-stop action, but I was still disappointed in how the movie handled the flow of the events (from mid-movie onward), one of which felt out of place and unnecessary to the story. But it's still enjoyable for those who like this type of storytelling. My favorite thing is the performances of the actors involved, especially Mr. Hunnam. His portrayal felt deep, humble and relatable. There are two kinds of social commentary present in this movie, both of which tackle important issues. I liked how the first was handled, but in the other one, a character made a sudden, out of place, and illogical demand/expectation that made me feel it could've been handled much better.

All in all, as the summary suggests, while there is nothing outstanding about the movie in specific areas, it can still be enjoyable.

The Lost Art of Script Writing

[herveherve · 1/10 · 28 March 2017]

This is the first review I have ever contributed to IMDb which I use on a regular basis to inform my viewing choices but I feel compelled to write it as the high ratings are so unjustified I feel I have a duty to share my experience and balance the 7.4 (!!!!) score. I went into this with high expectations... every ingredient was present to potentially make this my new favourite movie, unfortunately the script and narrative (if they originally  had one at all) failed to deliver.

My main problem was the narrative. The story takes place over a few decades and follows the efforts of Fawcett to discover the "Lost City of Z". He embarks on 3 "perilous" expeditions going up the Amazon but no sense of danger or suffering is at any point conveyed by the narrative.

 The 3 trips are each expedited under 20 minutes of screen time. We have absolutely no idea of the time involved (apparently the expeditions lasted a few years each) nor any feeling towards the hardships the crew faces. To make matters worse, new crew members keep appearing out of nowhere and at some point even a horse!! which was nowhere to be seen on the raft in previous scenes. If this was not enough.... the raft keeps going downstream when they are supposed to go UPSTREAM, towards the source of the river.... oh well, I could have lived with these inconsistencies if I had a character to root for. Unfortunately we never feel any sympathy towards any of the protagonists. The character development is non existent and not helped by the fact the acting is very stiff at the best of time and downright awful for most of the movie. I didn't find Charlie Hunnam convincing as a Hell's Angel in SOA but he is seriously laughable as an English Army officer. This absence of feeling and empathy is also to be experienced towards the wife and children he leaves behind, every time he embarks on one of those trips. We simply do not care for them.

I obviously did not go into it expecting a new Fitzcarraldo or Apocalypse Now but for a movie which should have dealt with a man's obsessive doomed quest for a Lost City, the jungle and/or the river should have been part and parcel of the movie, a character in itself, an omnipresent entity. No such thing. The whole movie could have been shot in a winter garden for all I saw... You never have the feeling you are in the mud with the protagonists. The only feeling you experience is one of utter detachment and an urge for the movie to finish as soon as possible.

Extremely disappointed. Do not believe the hype!

It's got everything in a Jungle exploration movie.

[francdrac · 8/10 · 27 December 2019]

This is my first review, since IMBD existed. This is NOT Raiders of the Lost Ark. But; It has Cannibals and Piranhas! It moves at a leisurely pace and will not make you sleepy. Unless you're really tired already. Very well done and acted! I'm not going to ramble on like 90% of these so called reviewers. It's worth the watch.

Brilliant production and acting cannot save this boring narrative

[clarke-illmatical · 6/10 · 7 October 2018]

There is no shortage of brilliant acting and production here. The problem with this film is that it doesn't deliver. Even if it is based on a novel, the writers might have done better if they took some liberties with the facts and delivered a more interesting narrative. Worth watching, but you're waiting for something to happen and it never does. More than anything, more could have been done to pique interest in the lost city. A native mentions it once, and while watching, you wonder why the protagonist was so obsessed.

Should be renamed The Lost City of Zzzz...

[JohnBull11 · 1/10 · 24 March 2017]

What was probably an incredibly interesting story has been turned into an incredibly dull film. Charlie Hunnam's Fawcett is as flat as roadkill and Robert Pattinson might as well have stayed at home in bed for all he brings to the tale. As for Angus Macfadyen; he obviously thought he was in a different movie entirely. Three times during this film Fawcett travels to the Bolivian jungle yet we barely learn anything about the place or his expeditions. The director skips hastily from one badly written scene to another with all the depth of a Stephenie Meyer novel. This film is an episodic series of set pieces, many of which should have been left in a heap on the cutting room floor; the entire WW1 sequence brings absolutely nothing to the story except filling quarter of an hour of screen time with clichéd dialogue and hackneyed visuals. With Fawcett's final trip to the jungle you might think that the fabled Lost City of Z might finally make an appearance; you'd be wrong. The film fizzles like a damp squib and then the credits roll, and not too soon either. Snore on.