The Lost City Of Z reviewed by Mark Kermode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Mark Kermode reviews The Lost City Of Z. Real-life British explorer, Col. Percival Fawcett, sets out with a small group into the Amazon in search of a mythical lost city.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film - below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5...
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live.
Getting to see Mark and Simon bicker is close to half the reason why I constantly watch this show.
He absolutely did tho!!
He did what?
He didn't, he just said Hunnam really quickly
Good to see Ian McDiarmid in a movie again.
I really did not. I actually genuinely like the actor.
Last thing I saw him in was the BBC drama 37 days, which was fantastic.
Or at least ask Charlie Hunham if he'd heard the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the wise
+No Where Man
That's something I might like to check out...
+PauLtus B Definitely if you have the time. It's about the lead up to the first world war from the archduke assassination - onward. Ian McDiarmid plays Edward Grey and is typically fantastic. Great piece of television.
Totally agree with MK's comments. Sienna was superb, Robert P was excellent and had the best lines, Charlie Humdrum was good, but his voice was flat. The cinematography was absolutely fabulous and the story was told very well. I agree with the comment about the fortune teller scene which was a bit odd, but apparently it really happened so that's why James Gray included it. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and am planning on seeing it again. It's lovely to see an adventure film that's been made with absolutely no CGI for a change - an absolute treat.
Yes I think Mark and Simon were too harsh on Charlie Hunnam and the film in general as it was overall an excellent piece of work. However they do have a point about the condensed storytelling sometimes leaving certain areas untouched including Pattinson's character despite him giving a very intriguing performance with what he was given.
Robert Hunnam
one of the rara occasions where I disagree with Mark. I thought Charlie did a great job in the lead and I found it the entire movie fascinating, although, as far as the portrayal and focus on the indigenious, I found 2016's "Embrace of the Serpent" a far more compelling and insightful
I'm so sorry, but I cannot unsee/hear Mr. McDiarmid as Palpatine, it's impossible.
I only realized it was him when I saw his name in the end credits. Fantastic actor.
I think Simon misrepresented Jacks turnaround. He was clearly conflicted after the war scene between his previous anger and then post war pride in his fathers actions and bravery
Horribly depressing for me. It's a well done film. Just terribly sad. And I think Charley Humdrum was an excellent choice for the role. Ugh. I'm still sad over it.
I know I’m years late on this, but after watching Ad Astra and then Lost City of Z, I’m convinced James Gray really wanted to perfect his version of Apocalypse Now. They’re both visually immaculate and acted (mostly) very well, but he constantly throws in a few too many on the nose lines that just feel like the characters are verbalizing the subtext of the film. Lost City of Z felt extremely well paced in certain spots, then incredibly rushed in others. It was already 2:20, he should have just made it a 3 hour epic and filled in some of the story gaps and maybe extend the absolutely perfect opening and closing acts. Both are equally tense and haunting, but there wasn’t quite enough of either.
*verbaliSing
I think Mark's being unfair here about the central character. He was played very well.
....he actually says Charlie Humner...
I just watched an hour long documentary given by the author of the book and I am convinced he wrote of himself in the book as the lesser character because that is how he views himself. The story was about Fawcets journey. The author was also very impressed with his guide who had done much humanitarian works with the indigenous ppl. So when you get the sense that the author is obscured, it is intentional. And that is why you are intentionally drawn to Pattison and others as main characters.
Also, the story had to be compressed because the story of Fawcet alone could make three separate movies and the author wanted to incorporate the present changes taking place vs the descriptions he had from Fawcets diary. Lastly, although Fawcet was absent from his family there is no reason to believe he had a tumultuous relationship with his son OTHER THAN Hollywood rhetoric.
I'm certain a person would get much more intrigue and satisfaction from the book, but would lack the visual beauty of the Amazon offered by the camera.
Interesting that they other guy who does this show (Robbie Collin) absolutely loved this film and is his best film of the year so far.
Jack Webb he tried to argue Transformers was a good movie too.
One of the only times I've agreed with Robbie
When they came back after the initial find, I paused it and and it was barely a quarter of the way in. That felt too early after a nice tense build up and small reveal. It felt too episodic. I did enjoy it though, particularly the opera scene which was wonderfully bizarre, and the final shot of his wife leaving the RGS and walking into the jungle. I thought she was fantastic.
Massively underrated movie.
I have to agree with pretty much everything in Mark's review. I didn't love the film, but something about it did stay with me: their absolute isolation, the final scene of Fawcett (for obvious reasons). I love the moment when Robert Pattinson's character is watching the natives fish- his performance is just so natural, so subtle, just brilliant. Hunnam is "fine", but I think another (better) actor could have brought a lot more depth and complexity to the lead character.
I personally think Charlie was solid in this film, nothing spectacular. He can definitely act, sons of anarchy is a great example of him showing off his chops. Although he has had a couple films like Pacific rim where his acting seemed off. It may be the role he ends up in that determine what performance he gives, and he just hasn't landed that perfect role for him yet, a lot of people wanna see a green arrow role which might be cool
"The Lost city of ZZZinge!!!" Tim Curry. Congo. #schlocktastic
stop eating my sesame cake #congo
I still wonder if that film was an intentional self-parody or not. The casting and the gorilla say yes but I'm not sure if the producers ever admitted to it.
Liar, liar, your pants are on fire.
Keptain plese...all I vish, is to explorre, and discovr...
I really liked the movie, but was expecting it to cover more from the book, specifically the author's own travels to the Amazon with the experts and the final conclusion that they were standing right there on the ruins of the Lost City of Z. I asked the filmmaker that since this movie was part A of the book, would he be making part B. It sounded like he wasn't interested in the archeology and science resulting in actually finding the city. It sounded like he was just interested in the history of Percy Fawcett, and that he did a really good job filming the natives. He did!
Really enjoyed this. Quite haunting.
He said Humner!
I'm surprised by how good of an actor Pattinson is, I've only seen him in this and Childhood of a Leader but he's really good in both
I thought he (pattinson) gave his best performance in The Rover - he's fantastic in that. I've yet to see Z, mind.
The Rover, Good Time and Lost City of Z all solid performances
omg watch Good Time
it's brilliant and he's brilliant in it
I did not know that Tom Holland and Palpatine from Star Wars are in this movie.
Be sure to read the book for the FULL STORY!
Linda M. The use of capital letters here is baffling
I said Hunnam, I didn't... oh, hi Mark.
mayo doing mind games on kermode about pronouncing that name... devious sod
Execute order 66
Horror fans are without doubt the best film critics.
Pros:
.robert is great
.film is gorgeous
.score is great
.story is great in parts
Cons:
.too much filler
.most characters aren't very interesting here (minus Robert)
Just saw this film for the first time and came to see what the good doctor had to say.
I felt like the pacing was well off in this film and it was a bit bland. In places it feels like it drags on without getting anywhere, with several scenes adding little to the narrative. Then on the flip side there were bits of the story that were glossed over or skipped. The acting and script are OK but nothing more. However, I found the subject matter interesting and that was enough to make it a worthy watch I'm glad I saw it. Maybe it would have been better as a series.
It will always be weird to hear British people say zed instead of just z
As a Brit I can assure you its more weird when one of our own says zee!
Can someone explain the interpretation of the Ending of this film? I'm not sure what actually happened to the main character.
wrestledeep historically it is not known what happened to Fawcett and his son. Many missions tried to find him. I loved the film and the soundtrack is amazing.
We never find out and it’s infuriating. They probably just died.
Note. ... Team effort and solidarity was also a key aspect here: The lack of charisma in the Fawcett character enabled a story supported by the integrity of key characters and highlighted by the failure and treachery of others.
He did say 'Humner' 😄
Then came Humdrum.
Birdy Humnum.
This looks and sounds a lot like the Bob Rafelson film "Mountains of the Moon."
Who went back to check
I loved this movie but the ending had me feeling depressed...
Why no Aquarius review? [Sorry if this getting annoying for the poor producer or whomever it is that ends up reading these but I really am curious]....I have seen it now btw
:)
The film’s very well acted, visually stunning, terrifically directed, realistic & A very put together biopic. (92%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
Cliche story and screenplay well directed and acted
palpatine lives
Kermode did not say HUMNUM
Haha the best review show on today, I think I will like this movie
so... not a zombie film, then?
Haha he said his name wrong
I got the odd feeling watching lost city of z that i was watching some 70's yarn that would have been a Michael Caine or Roger Moore vehicle. Would have been great if the producers had made the movie in that vein . Instead its a badly cobbled together attempt at a historical drama with a too heavy dose of rather preachy commentary on the morals of that age. Deeply disappointed.
'The Lost City of Z' seemed to me to have a number of the elements of a good movie, but missed one vital ingredient; entertainment. Ultimately, I was bored by it. I also think it fell into the trap of wanting to chronologically tell the whole biographical story which resulting in a lack of focus and shallow characterisation in an overly long film. Maybe a better script would have been to keep to the final trip to the jungle and use appropriate flashbacks for the other relevant stuff? I can't really recommend it. 2/5
He said the whole name wrong lmfaooooo
This movie sucks
order 66 charlie humnuh sickening
book sucked, maybe the movie is better
Does Kermode really have to start fawning over the lead actress in _every single review?_
I don't know about the other reviews but Miller does happen to be really good in this
i'm with Simon on this one. movie was boring. performances were alright.
Charlie Hunnan was Jax in the Sons of Anarchy. He is Col. Fawcett in this movie and whilst watching the said movie I always expected him to hop on his Harley Davidson motorcycle and ride off some where. Type cast as he was I could not enjoy the movie. Must sleep now ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I liked it but it needed a charasmatic lead and probably to see the Lost City itself
Execute order 66
it was the first thing i thought when i saw him.