The Lost City of Z

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

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.

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.

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

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.