The Lost City of Z (April 2017)

I am hoping that this movie gives adult adventure fans the fix we need:

The Lost City of Z - Movie Trailers - iTunes

I read the book several years ago. It is well written, but the conclusion is kind of a let down. But the story itself is a great, old fashion adventure yarn. I think Brad Pitt was once associated with the project, but no longer is.

 

I have and read the book, interesting to see what becomes of it. A get a Arthur Conan Doyle - Lost World kind of thing. That was a good book too.

 

Getting good reviews from critics and currently has an 88% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Opened in limited release last week and opens wide tomorrow.

I'm going to see it when it comes to a theatre close by. Even though it is opening wide tomorrow, for some reason, my cinema complex isn't showing it starting tomorrow. There are only 2 theatres in Cincinnati showing it starting tomorrow and one in Northern Kentucky, which is about 10 miles away but one I rarely go to since I don't like it that much. I will wait a week to see if my cinema complex picks it up next week before making a trek elsewhere to see it.

 

Looks good. It's on my schedule for Sunday afternoon.

 

Looks good. I've been interested in Col. Percy Fawcett for years.

 

My wife and I just got back from seeing this movie. She left earlier than I, and I left before the end (as well). Judging by the critics catalogued on RT, it is a "must see" in my favorite category (outdoor adventure type movies, but not about mythical giant apes), but all I can say is that a fascinating story does not necessarily make a good movie, at least not in the hands of this director (James Gray). Maybe he is a fine director, but I dare say he was off his game on this one. When such a tale becomes boring and interested, one truly is "lost." At RT, one of the audience reviewers summed it up this way:

"James Grey makes a weak film that wants to be an exciting adventure (yet it does manage to be tense at times) but is mostly uninteresting and overlong, with not much to offer besides a lot of clichés, silly dialogue and poorly-developed motivations for its obsessed protagonist." I tend to agree. Your mileage may differ. It just didn't "float my boat."

 

Damn, sorry to hear that. I wonder how this thing managed to get a Rotten Tomatoes rating in the high 80s?

Btw, when that one audience reviewer complains about the movie's "silly dialogue" -- is that dialogue that was added to the movie, or was it in the book too?

 

All explorers rely on silly dialogue. It's required by an International Historical Consortium.

 

Read the book several years ago. I'll probably skip the movie.

 

Bad reviews not withstanding I plan on seeing this. I loved the book and love the story. Count me in.

 

Saw it today and like most movies, it takes some liberties with the facts but whatever. I thought it was a well done movie that was fairly reverent to its source material. If you didn't like it, you probably don't like movies about exploration. I guess stick to Indiana Jones type stuff.

 

I did too. I liked the book, but thought it fizzled at the end. The great civilization that was "found" -- so to speak -- was anti-climatic (SPOILER: just some archeological imprints in the jungle).

 

The movie was a total downer. Also a huge bomb for Amazon -- it's made less than $10 million so far. My guess is it cost well north of $70M.

I'll say this for the filmmakers: they stuck with the true story and did not embellish the fate of the main characters. So the real-life story was a downer, too, for more than 100 explorers who searched for this lost civilization.

 

I saw this today along with Guardians of the Galaxy. And while I liked Lost City, it's the kind of film I would hesitate recommending to friends and family. It is not a movie for the mass audience.

I do think it would have been more effective with an actor like Joaquin Phoenix (director James Gray's frequent star) in the lead. And I can think of some other filmmakers who would/might have been more effective with this material. But it's a good movie. (The RT audience reviewer who complained about "silly dialogue""--that I don't get at all.)

 

Considering that Brad Pitt was originally attached to star in the movie but pulled out I thought Charlie Hunnam was a logical choice. There's nothing wrong with his performance in the least. In fact, there's nothing wrong with this movie at all. I enjoyed it (as I did the book) and would definitely recommend it to friends. Now, is it one of those movies you can watch over and over? No, it is not, but it's a good film and, in places, quite fascinating.