The Lost City of Z (2016)

Based on the book by David Grann, this tells the wild true story of Colonel Percy Fawcett, who headed deep into the Amazon at the turn of the 20th century to find the legendary "Lost City of Z"—a place supposedly home to an advanced civilization.

Director: James Gray
Writers: James Gray (screenplay by), David Grann (based on the book by)
Stars: Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212428/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Surprised I don't see this movie being discussed here. Anyone actually seen it? Thoughts?...

Honestly, the movie is pretty great. That drive he has—that obsession with discovery that trumps everything else—it’s intense.
And the Amazon? Man, it looks absolutely stunning 😍

The movie feels unfinished. Honestly, it was kind of a drag, even though the actual story is phenomenal. They just didn't manage to pull it off on screen. The only thing that actually kept me interested was Robert Pattinson. He did a great job, whereas the lead actor just lacks the necessary charisma. It’s like he's missing something. 🤔

Grace Sanders24 said:The movie felt unfinished to me. Honestly, it was kind of a slog—even though the actual story is incredible. They just didn't pull it off on screen. The only thing that actually caught my attention was Robert Pattinson. He actually worked for me, which is saying something since the lead actor lacks any real charisma. It’s like there's just a void where the presence should be. 🤔

Unfinished? Please—everything is right there: the curiosity, the Amazon, all of it. We could sit here and debate egos all day, or we could just compare it to American travelogues and call it a day. 😁

I agree, it feels a bit unfinished. I guess since the story spans so many years—with his kids growing all the way into puberty—it might just be a bit much to squeeze everything into a two-hour runtime.

It’s an interesting story on its own, but as a movie? I don't know—it feels like something is missing. They try to convey the passage of time, but it just doesn't feel fully fleshed out to me. There's this weird emptiness to the whole thing. There are even some logic gaps—like when the guy finally returns home and his wife greets him with a tiny infant, which contradicts what he said earlier in the film about how much time had actually passed.
Robert Pattinson actually surprised me; honestly, I think he gave the best performance of the bunch. The lead and Sienna Miller felt a bit forced, though.
Overall, it's a decent enough watch, but nothing to write home about.

I felt the exact same way—it was pretty dull. I wasn't necessarily expecting a masterpiece from Indiana Jones, but you’d think there would be at least a *hint* of an adventure vibe present.
I haven't read the book, so I can't say if this was how it was supposed to go. At the start, the guy seems almost forced into going. And then why does he come back? Turns out he’s obsessed with this lost civilization, but the movie never actually explains why. Or where it is. Or who it involves. The title is what it is, but you'd expect the plot to actually center on that. Maybe I'm just being dense.
All those little side quests that should have just been minor obstacles on the way to the main plot ended up becoming the entire movie. Honestly, I found myself more invested in his family's drama back in New York City than I was in him trying to sing to the locals.

Family drama aside, there were a few decent moments. It reminded me a bit of a Herzog jungle documentary. Still, I just couldn't find the motivation to sit through to the end.

silvertiger11 said:I felt the same way. It was boring. I wasn't expecting much from Indiana Jones, but there should have been more adventure.
Never read the book, so who knows if it was supposed to be like this. He seems forced into going at first. Why did he go back later? Turns out he's just obsessed with that lost civilization. But they never really explain it. Why? Where? Who? The title is what it is. You'd expect the movie to actually focus on that. Maybe that's just me.
All those little side quests meant to lead up to the main plot ended up being the whole movie. I was more interested in how his family was doing in New York City than watching him sing to locals.

Family drama aside, there were some good parts. Reminded me a bit of Herzog's jungle films. Still couldn't finish it.

The message here is basically: it's about the journey, not the destination.

Edward Price6 said:The vibe here is basically: it's about the journey, not the destination.

It would have been fine if the movie wasn't a snooze fest and the lead actor wasn't a total disaster.
Great concept, terrible execution. Such a waste.

Extremely tedious film. I spent most of the runtime waiting for something actually interesting to happen out there in the jungle, but instead, we get stuck with endless scenes set in Europe, drowning in all that philosophical hand-wringing about how, why, and when. It was a completely missed opportunity.

So, I just finished watching... honestly, the whole thing felt like a straight line. Just totally flat. There wasn't a single surprise or twist to be found in the entire runtime, just two hours and twenty minutes of the exact same linear plot dragging along. Probably a solid 5/10 for me.

Steven White96 said:pretty boring movie. I kept waiting for something actually happening out in the jungle, but most of it is just people wandering around America, philosophizing about how and why and when. It was a missed opportunity, honestly. Just totally missed the mark.

I guess we agree... sort of...

Pretty dull movie. Lead actor’s about as convincing as a fake ID; he seems to have more chemistry with his dog than his own kids.
All he does for his wife is show up, hit the sack, and leave—maybe three times total. The highlight was when he goes charging into battle, but instead of clutching a photo of his wife, he’s kissing some drawing of a jungle.🤦
He’s framed as this arrogant jerk who cares more about the wilderness than anything else, but he played the part so poorly it was just boring.👎
The real hero is his wife, staying home and holding everything together alone. Finishing this tonight just to see if he actually finds El Dorado or not.
Honestly, I hope it’s actually spectacular, because after sitting through two hours of nothing happening, I’m losing hope.

Betty Nelson71 said:Pretty boring movie. The lead actor isn't convincing as a father at all. He seems to have more chemistry with his dog than with his kids.
All he does for his wife is show up, sleep with her, and leave—three times. The best part was when he goes charging into battle and kisses a drawing of a jungle instead of his wife's picture or clothes.🤦
They portray him as this arrogant jerk who cares about the jungle more than anything else, but he was just totally unconvincing and dull.👎
The real hero is his wife, staying home and raising the kids solo. Finishing it tonight to see if he actually finds the city or not.
Really hoping it’s spectacular, because after waiting two hours for something to happen, nothing did.

Hehe, interesting insight from a female perspective.

No spoilers for the ending. :-)

I don't know, but every time I catch a headline like that
it just takes me right back to Washington, D.C.

I was actually planning on checking that one out. But honestly? I'm over it. I think I'll just go watch Casino '95 instead :-D

I wonder if anyone here has actually sat down with the book the movie was based on? I found the film somewhat intriguing, though it felt a bit sluggish at times. Still, I suppose it might be worth picking up the novel if it’s truly compelling and someone thinks they could recommend it.

Richard Barrett53 said:Has anyone read the book this was based on? I found the movie pretty intriguing, but honestly, it dragged a bit. It definitely makes me want to check out the book if it's actually worth the time. Any recommendations?

I've read it! It’s based on the journals of Percy Fawcett, and the edition I had even included some of his actual photos from the trips. It gave me major Kon Tiki vibes. There’s way more detail in the book—all these crazy adventures, bug bites, river treks, and encounters with local tribes. The movie cuts a lot out to focus on the characters' psychology (though maybe not always successfully). It was actually kind of funny reading how Percy describes his sponsor, Murray, as a complete incompetent during their second trip down the Amazon. The movie makes it way more dramatic than it really was.
I just don't get how they managed to exchange letters while stuck deep in the jungle. What, did some guy just sprint through the brush carrying mail?

Didn't finish it. Just hopped on Wikipedia to see if he actually found that lost city. He didn't.☕After all that madness, he just dies on the road and takes his son down with him. Grim.
The guy was basically just an old-school surveyor mapping out Bolivia. It’s like if I decided to hike the Rocky Mountains right now just to write a blog about local plants and forest spirits.🤣
I told myself after watching Pacific Rim that I was done with this actor, yet here I am, watching this garbage and then Arthur—which was even worse.🥱

Betty Nelson71 said:I didn't even finish it; I just hopped on Wikipedia to see if he actually found that lost city, and nope.☕ After all that nonsense he dragged himself through, he just dies on the road and takes his son down with him. Just wonderful.
The guy was basically just a surveyor mapping out Bolivia. It would be like me heading out to the Rocky Mountains right now to write some pretentious blog about local flora and fauna or forest spirits.🤣
I told myself after watching Pacific Rim that I wouldn't touch another movie featuring this actor, yet here I am, having watched both this mess and El Dorado, which was arguably even worse.🥱

I’ve sat through maybe six or seven of his films, and honestly, whenever someone brings him up, my first thought is usually, "Wait, where was he in that one again?"
I suppose he’s just entirely forgettable, for whatever reason.😁