Thumbs up or thumbs down? Simple, spoiler free reviews.
At the dawn of the 20th century, British explorer Percy Fawcett journeys into the Amazon, where he discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilisation. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment, which views indigenous populations as savages, the determined Fawcett returns to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case.
Long, drawn out, flat, dull…boring. All words I would use to describe The Lost City of Z. At 140 minutes, it feels even longer while you watch it. You might be able to tell that I was not a fan. I’m actually surprised over the number of positive reviews this has. Maybe I’m in the minority, although the people leaving the cinema all seemed to agree with me from what I overheard.
The story and history of the events are quite fascinating but the movie itself just wasn’t a very exciting or interesting watch. Far too much time was spent not adventuring. For a film about an explorer, you would have thought he’d be exploring in it.
Charlie Hunnam as Colonel Percy Fawcett, is wooden, one-dimensional and generally uninspiring. Tom Holland as his son is awkward and unconvincing. Sienna Miller however is quite good as Mrs Nina Fawcett and Robert Pattinson is probably the best I’ve ever seen him.
Fawcett’s obsession with finding Z was merely hinted at as well, rather than focused on. In this film it seems more like a casual hobby to do on a Sunday afternoon than anything else.
There were a few good moments strung throughout though, finding an opera in the middle of the jungle and a tense exchange with a slave dealer for example. Not enough to keep me interested though unfortunately.