The Lost City of Z

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)

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)

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. (10/04/2020)

An old-school tale that often hints at Spielberg's most ambitious works. Slow, consistent, directorially pedantic, with an emphasis on the exceptional atmosphere of the early 20th century and an extremely charismatic protagonist. A message of discovery greater than that of Medicine Man, and visually as brilliant as The New World – which it most resembles. In content, however, those films are incomparable, because Gray sticks to facts and tangibles and Malick plays on feelings, philosophising through the game of image and sound. The Lost City of Z is a slightly more conventional, middle-of-the-road film for people who don't mind lack of action in favour of a dense story, although the pace and rhythm are occasionally problematic. 2 hours 20 minutes is too long for the material and the chosen concept, and in the second half, after all the cards have been revealed, it feels rather monotonous. (13/11/2017)