The Lost City of Z

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% (20/07/2017)

An adventure in the most crystalloid form. Mapping areas that civilization has not reached and looking for the legendary city of gold. The effort to adhere to reality at all costs here is amazing. Piranhas, cannibals, remnants of ancient civilizations and the jungle as the enemy and great loves too. The acting can’t be faulted. Hunnam is excellent, clever, and preoccupied leader type, Pattinson in a perfect role of an unshaved orator. The type of movie that resounds inside you and triggers your desire for discovery. (04/02/2018)

People who compare The Lost City of Z to Indiana Jones and refer to its hero as Indy's predecessor probably lack judgment, insight, or both, and a pinch of common sense. The film, from which I didn't really expect much at first, reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia in the best sense. It's a similarly impressive adventure spectacle, somewhat old-fashioned (sometimes in a meditative style reminiscent of Terrence Malick), superbly written (searching, finding, prejudice...) and also acted. I was particularly surprised by Robert Pattinson, whom I've only seen in a small role in Harry Potter so far, and who definitely has something to say to the film world. (25/04/2017)

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. (02/08/2017)

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. (06/07/2017)