The Lost City of Z

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. (07/05/2017)

Just don’t expect another Indiana Jones. The Lost City of Z is not big-screen adventure fun (like the recent unremarkable Kong), but an almost intimate drama about a dreamer who would like to be a good husband and father, but he is driven onward by his endless determination to discover hidden worlds. The movie’s characters and atmosphere are nice, as is spirit of the story. There’s no annoying digital crap, but no really exciting scenes either. Charlie Hunnam is good; as the producer, Brad Pitt is turning him into his younger successor. Incidentally, what is it with Brad Pitt and the letter Z? (04/19/2017)

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. (02/04/2018)

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. (08/02/2017)

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% (07/20/2017)