The Lost City of Z

Worse version of The Mountains of the Moon meets a worse version of There Will Be Blood. Which does not mean, however, that in any respect it was a boring or perhaps even a bad movie. On the contrary, this is not so adventurous movie about Conrad's destructive obsession with finding a chimera, and exactly the kind of old-school movie that would fit in a movie theater with the clatter of a classic "obsolete" film tape rather than the air-conditioned silence disturbed by popcorn crunch. The only mistake is that, unlike the best movies in this department, this works a little worse if you already know Fawcett's adventures. (24/04/2017)

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)

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 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)

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)