[go: up one dir, main page]

    Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
Back
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
  • FAQ
IMDbPro
Charlie Hunnam in The Lost City of Z (2016)

User reviews

The Lost City of Z

336 reviews
8/10

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

  • classicsoncall
  • Jan 23, 2019
  • Permalink
8/10

A great, enjoyable watch

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.
  • TreasureHunterGirl
  • Aug 11, 2019
  • Permalink
6/10

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

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.
  • Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki
  • Apr 29, 2017
  • Permalink
7/10

Unusual Review Notes for an Unusual Movie

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))
  • A_Different_Drummer
  • Jun 26, 2017
  • Permalink

Could have been great

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
  • rcarlsen-31328
  • Jun 29, 2017
  • Permalink
6/10

Where No Man Has Gone Before

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
  • ThomasDrufke
  • Apr 28, 2017
  • Permalink
7/10

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

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
  • subxerogravity
  • Apr 14, 2017
  • Permalink
6/10

An enticing quest but without a clear narrative focus

An American biographical adventure; A story about a man who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century aiming for a city he called 'Z' and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. It's a film that resembles, in style, exploration film epics of the mid-20th century. Charlie Hunnam gives a well measured performance as the British geographer, Army Major, and explorer Percy Fawcett. The story centres on passion and determination and obsession and escape but also the losses suffered by leaving home - his growing family and dutiful wife - in service of fantastical dreams. It is a biopic by numbers of a troublesome topic because Fawcett's history has many critics. Nonetheless, it is a stately adventure despite the slow pacing.
  • shakercoola
  • Mar 10, 2019
  • Permalink
8/10

Civilisations Lost and Found

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.
  • TonyAtTheMovies
  • Jun 11, 2020
  • Permalink
7/10

beautiful but meanders

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.
  • SnoopyStyle
  • Jan 19, 2018
  • Permalink
3/10

Massive let down

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.
  • peter-stead-740-486963
  • Mar 27, 2017
  • Permalink
8/10

Biopic of the end of empire

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.
  • robbierunciman-1
  • Mar 25, 2017
  • Permalink
6/10

Brilliant production and acting cannot save this boring narrative

  • clarke-illmatical
  • Oct 6, 2018
  • Permalink
2/10

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

  • martin-807-452270
  • Mar 28, 2017
  • Permalink

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.

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.
  • milk-carton-reviews
  • Apr 30, 2017
  • Permalink
7/10

Realistic account of exploring the deep regions of Amazonia

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
  • Wuchakk
  • Dec 20, 2020
  • Permalink
7/10

Nothing extraordinary, but still enjoyable to a degree

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.
  • gyappu
  • Jun 29, 2017
  • Permalink
6/10

Great watch for people who are into explorer movies

  • Horst_In_Translation
  • May 5, 2017
  • Permalink
7/10

Ignore the bad reviews

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.
  • chrismonkee
  • Sep 17, 2019
  • Permalink
9/10

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

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.
  • MOscarbradley
  • May 26, 2018
  • Permalink
6/10

An ok Sunday movie

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.
  • MickeyTheConstant
  • Mar 25, 2019
  • Permalink
1/10

The Lost Art of Script Writing

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!
  • herveherve
  • Mar 27, 2017
  • Permalink
8/10

It's got everything in a Jungle exploration movie.

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.
  • francdrac
  • Dec 26, 2019
  • Permalink
6/10

Fascinating journey of an explorer but kind of depressing

  • phd_travel
  • May 16, 2017
  • Permalink
1/10

Should be renamed The Lost City of Zzzz...

  • JohnBull11
  • Mar 23, 2017
  • Permalink

More from this title

More to explore

Recently viewed

Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
Get the IMDb App
Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
Follow IMDb on social
Get the IMDb App
For Android and iOS
Get the IMDb App
  • Help
  • Site Index
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • License IMDb Data
  • Press Room
  • Advertising
  • Jobs
  • Conditions of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, an Amazon company

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.