The Lost City of Z

2016

Action / Adventure / Biography / Drama / History

333
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 88%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 64%
IMDb Rating 6.6 10 52184

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 1,440,765 times
July 01, 2017 at 03:55 PM

Director

Cast

Tom Holland as Jack Fawcett
Charlie Hunnam as Percy Fawcett
Sienna Miller as Nina Fawcett
Robert Pattinson as Henry Costin
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1.02 GB
1280*534
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 21 min
P/S 46 / 536
2.16 GB
1920*800
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 21 min
P/S 22 / 467

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by martin-807-452270 2 / 10

Someone managed to make the exploration of the Amazon incredibly dull.

*****Spoiler Alert**** I was really looking forward to this film, as how can the exploration of the Amazon be anything other than amazing? Well I was wrong, this was utterly boring, excruciatingly dull and just plain awful. I can only give it a 1 out of 5 rating. After the first 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and wondering if I should bother, as I had more important things to do, like clean the oven. How can anyone make the exploration of the Amazon so tedious? This could have been like real life Indiana Jones! There was absolutely no sense of danger at any point, just flat as a very thin pancake. The film should really be re-named The Lost City of Zzzzzzz.

It was a truly odd film, this bloke gets asked to go Bolivia for the Royal Society to do some maps and stuff, doesn't want to go, But they offer him a shiny medal so he goes (leaving his wife and new born son), has a rubbish time, comes back to London, goes back to the Amazon (leaving wife, and second son), comes back to London, Goes to France for WW1, comes back to London and then goes to Amazonia again... For Heaven's sake man - just choose one! I shouted through gritted teeth.

It's terribly directed and the cinematography is really bad (and I say this as a trained cinematographer). It's so dark that I actually wondered if the bulb in the projector was bust, but then it would cut to a scene outside in a garden and it would (almost) be correctly exposed. Some interiors were so badly lit I actually couldn't see who was speaking, and a huge number of shots were so out of focus I again wondered if we were watching a dud print.

There was a really important (cough) scene with two blokes on a train having a chat about something. Now one bloke has a beard and one has a moustache, so that helps tell them apart in the dark, but for some reason we are looking at them over their shoulders and not 'at' them, and Mr Moustache-bloke turns away from camera (probably trying this 'acting' thing) and I can no longer see his face just his ear. Now it's so dark I can't tell if he has a nice ear, if it's too big or too small or if it sticks out, and By God this must be damn boring if I'm wondering about the relative angles of ear projection rather than what the hell is going on.

The framing is really odd, and the eye lines are all over the place, so I don't know who is speaking to who, and often the camera operator decided to be above or below eye-lines, making my head ache as it was so badly composed.

The first three scenes of the film could all be cut, or would serve better as flash backs, as they just don't go anywhere at all. OK a bit of back story, but we know the Major wants a medal with a single line of dialogue, not three flipping scenes as dull as a rainy Sunday.

The main character Major Blokey-pants was utterly dull and his motivation was all rather thrust down out throats, and I didn't care for him. Only after 90 minutes or so did his wife start talking about some bloke names Percy and I thought "Who is Percy?" and I realised it was the main character, who had been referred to as Major something or other (I forget) for the entire rest of the movie.

Couple of massive plot holes: they were in the middle of nowhere running low on food on a raft made of branches saying how no white man had ever been here before and clearly in the background is a bloke on a horse in a field. I kept thinking they would pan around and explain but they never did. I also wondered if they were travelling to seek the source of the river, how they were just floating along and not constantly rowing, as a river flows away from the source to the ocean.

They have been travelling down river for a year apparently and it all goes wrong and they decide to send this bloke back on a horse. Where did this horse come from?

And they are in the middle of the river all weak and dying and the other bloke (Beard-o) says to the main bloke "and here's a letter from you wife." FTAF??? Where had he been keeping that then?

When we finally get to the WW1 scenes the dead bodies in the trenches are clearly shop window dummies and for a film that is this expensive that is just rubbish. These scenes add absolutely nothing to the film, we could just have had a Voice over which went "After the first world war, where I saw active service in France and that bloke I knew who was on the trip to Bolivia with me, you know, thingie, was killed, I returned to London..."

Eventually we get back to Amazonia for the third time and Major Blokey-pants has bought his son with him this time Blokey-Pants minor, and they bang on about finding this lost city of Zzzz but never does he put forward a reason why he thinks there might be a lost city or indeed, why he is so keen to find it, he just wants to find it. Who were these people? Why did their civilisation die out? what was their favourite past time? Did they like cheese? None of these questions were answered or indeed even asked.

Compare this film to the savage Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1972 Herzog) the bonkers Fitzcaraldo (1982 Herzog) or even the rather depressing The Mission (1986 Joffe) and you will be sorely disappointed.

Reviewed by proud_luddite 6 / 10

Could have been better

Based on a true story: in the early 1900s, Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam) is a young British artillery officer and cartographer assigned to help settle a boundary dispute/war between Bolivia and Brazil. During this trip, he discovers signs that indicate the possibility of a lost civilization. This causes a fascination that draws him to discover more about the region.

The film and its main performer have a few things in common: they are both visually attractive but their respective depths are each just slightly above average. One would expect more from a film of two hours and twenty minutes. There isn't anything necessarily flawed in the film. There are just moments when one wants it to go further.

The cinematography by Darius Khondji is stunning and the main draw for this film. Whether in Britain, the battlefields of World War I, or South American forests, the film was always a treat for the eyes.

The ending was troublesome and confusing. Without giving anything away, the final disclaimer basically proves that the last segment of the movie was total speculation. "Lost City of Z" would have been a better film without this speculation.

Reviewed by pronker pronker 9 / 10

Fascinating Fawcett, Fine Film.

Since about 1970, I've been interested in Fawcett and so this movie fits into the niche of 'gotta see it.' I liked the movie's daring to be made at all, frankly, so congratulations to Pitt; the subject of exploration with hype suited to early 20th century mindsets rang true. The depiction of the departure final trip's acclaiming crowds made me happy for Fawcett and to see him charmed by the fame and financial support touched me. He certainly had it difficult for years and years.

Now I've read Grann's book and yes, admired its treatment of a difficult personality to our 21st century ways of thinking. For him to explore years at a time, and on more numerous expeditions than the film covers, by leaving his growing family behind is hard to take. It's like workers who leave their countries to work in other countries for the money and leave their families behind; it's acceptable but certainly not desirable to have to go 'where the work is.'

As a movie, the cinematography of jungle and countryside captivated me and the British costumes looked right. The attitudes of Fawcett and his wife seemed to me to be okay for the period, as Fawcett lived in a strict military world and Mrs. Fawcett played along to a certain extent. Her yearning to accompany her husband into the wild was wrong-headed basically, but her 'independence' dictated that she at least try to come along, I guess, in terms of emotional logic. A movie without Miller's Nina Fawcett would have been a poorer movie. I liked her performance even while disagreeing with the urge to leave her three children behind.

Other reviews stated how the raft miraculously floated upstream and ha, I didn't even notice that bit! The character study that was this movie carried me along and I didn't care about that unrealistic part. All in all, I recommend this movie as a paean to courage and love of the unknown; the cost of that love sure looks to have been paid by Fawcett and his son.

Read more IMDb reviews

114 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment