Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

michaelchannon-194-965290 The story, fascinating as it is based on a true life, is hard to pin down and get into it. No time did I feel trapped and feel exhausted by empathy while watching this film, although I am sure shooting this film would have been torturous. For that reason, they could've used real life events on film to incorporate the tension of going through a jungle would be like (especially the amount of gear you need). It really lacks in any emotional punch - nowt. It would have the actors at breaking points with filming in such conditions, then why not use this to the viewer's advantage? You need that sort of exploitation to tell this particular story.It was far too comfortable. How did they ever keep on travelling back? To and fro throughout the film, and nothing of these particular journeys except of some parts of getting "there" (many theres in this film).Too big of a life for such a small film. Fixate on one aspect of life I would suggest - just pick one of these events and pull out the emotional and physical effort needed to draw on. In the end, dull - I am sure not because of the effort of crew and actors. But it was dull.

hollydoo97 The moral of the story changes too many times to count, there is no chapter development, the timeline is so crammed into 2.5 hrs that it makes little to no sense. Overall, upset and let down.

jtindahouse For some reason at the moment I'm right into movies set in the jungle of exotic countries. I'm not sure the reason, perhaps I'm craving an exotic adventure for myself. Whatever it is though it's got me watching every one of them I can find. I had been meaning to get around to 'The Lost City of Z' but the runtime of two hours 20 minutes had me a little bit sceptical. The pacing of a film with that length needs to impeccable otherwise it can drag on and become a real chore. I finally got around to seeing it though and what I discovered wasn't a bad film, but it certainly wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped for.I'd hoped for a film much more like 'Jungle' starring Daniel Radcliffe where they enter the jungle, the action begins and then never lets up. Instead I found it a very frustrating and choppy film. Every time the action was just starting to begin they'd suddenly cut back to civilisation with them out of the jungle and the boring set up nonsense would start again. The film is undoubtedly at its strongest when it is set in the jungle.It sounds like there was a hell of a lot of adversity during the shoot. I commend the cast and crew for committing to actually film in the jungle. It sounds like it was bloody awful at times. There's some very strong dialogue throughout the movie that helps pave over a lot of the cracks. There are unquestionably better jungle set movies out there that I would recommend checking out before this one.

pronker pronker 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.