Directed by:
James GrayScreenplay:
James GrayCinematography:
Darius KhondjiComposer:
Christopher SpelmanCast:
Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller, Tom Holland, Angus Macfadyen, Ian McDiarmid, Edward Ashley, Clive Francis, Aleksandar Jovanovic (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
Based on author David Grann's nonfiction bestseller, THE LOST CITY OF Z tells the incredible true story of British explorer Percy Fawcett, 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. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment who regard indigenous populations as "savages," the determined Fawcett – supported by his devoted wife (Sienna Miller), son (Tom Holland) and aide de camp (Robert Pattinson) – returns time and again to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case, culminating in his mysterious disappearance in 1925. An epically-scaled tale of courage and obsession, told in Gray's classic filmmaking style, THE LOST CITY OF Z is a stirring tribute to the exploratory spirit and those individuals driven to achieve greatness at any cost. (Amazon Studios)
(more)Videos (5)
Reviews (14)
James Gray is a director that doesn't seem to belong in today's world. This is how films were told in the 1950s and 60s, in the era of David Lean's thoughtful big movies, i.e. slowly, deliberately, with an emphasis on character portrayal, with a strong lead (the charismatic Hunnam was an ideal choice). Today's spoiled kids, addicted to Fast and Furious, Marvel and similar crap on steroids, let them go somewhere else, they wouldn’t appreciate this. This favors a strong story, and I like it that way. PS: Charlie Hunnam is a stud. There aren’t many more charismatic actors than him today. I hope that the lack of commercial success of his last two films won’t kill his career with producers.
()
A journey that does not lead along any seemingly clear paths. It is not a tale of adventure, but neither is it a detailed study of jungle turmoil, fortunately. Fawcett and Costin may have attempted both directions, and yet they are described in a completely different spirit. One where the main focus is on their own determination, the search for a life goal, and not losing sight of that goal no matter the sacrifices. The result is that increasingly rare phenomenon of an honest epic film, which takes as much time as it needs to reach its point. Its only (but easily visible) mistake is that it takes at least half an hour more than necessary to fit everything precisely.
()
A pretty appealing premise and a promising Charlie Hunnam, who made a decent name for himself after King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, but simply boring for my taste. On the other hand, if the whole film was set in the jungle with the cannibals, I'd find it much more entertaining, but once the story starts going home and back, it loses pace and my interest considerably. The production design is decent, visually it’s ok, but the slow pace and extremely long running time hurt the film. 55%
()
Major Fawcett was no Dr. Jones, but it wasn't until the second half that I realized I was watching an unconventional "based on a true story," film because something so old-world, so austere, and yet so nourishing in terms of audience enjoyment would not have been approved by any legitimate producer, even if it cost a mere 30 million. Unfortunately, it didn't make even a third of that, and since Hollywood is ruled by accountants, I'm a little worried about the blue-eyed blond Hunnam, who (in Czech movie theaters) gave two diametrically opposed charismatic performances in the space of a month. It's really too bad because it deserves a stronger audience response if only for the darkened atmosphere, the focused and careful direction, and the very unobtrusive glosses of the period.
()
I admit that I enjoy similar movies to this one. Ones that are elaborate, technically precise with great camera work and soundtrack, and that attempt to convey a message while providing space for the viewer's imagination. The Lost City of Z is a film about human courage, the desire for knowledge, and the obsession to achieve a set goal. It tells a story from a time when explorers had to be adventurers and men, and when it truly mattered to push one's limits and consciously calculate that one might be saying goodbye to loved ones for the last time. In terms of genre, it combines adventure spectacle (without the beloved action and fantasy elements) with the biographical story of Major Fawcett, whose task was to map the region known as the "green hell" in the Amazon basin. A generation later, travelers were already using planes and motorboats, while Percy Fawcett resembled the renowned 19th-century adventurers equipped only with a compass and immeasurable determination to fill the vast blank spaces on the map. I like The Lost City of Z because it is a mature film in every sense, making no concessions to family audiences or teenagers, and not relying on emotions and sentiments. If I had to dwell on something, it would perhaps be the film's idealism of Fawcett's relationship with indigenous cultures, which corresponds to the opinions of modern urban liberals of Euro-American civilization and does not fit into the mindset of the British officers raised with the civilizational superiority of the white man and the elitism of a member of the British Empire at the height of its power. The film also could have been more atmospheric in the Latin American part, with more focus on magical realism elements. There could have been more scenes like the expedition's entrance into the opera straight from the jungle or the hallucinogenic scene of being captured by an indigenous tribe. Nevertheless, I give it an honest 4 stars and an overall impression of 80%.
()
Ads