The Lost City of Z

Audience Reviews

View All (689) audience reviews

Mr P The Lost City of Zzzzzzzzzz.....It is very dull and dreadfully miscast and acted. Watch Aguirre Wrath of God instead. A true masterpiece Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 11/23/24 Full Review Audience Member Terrible film Terrible acting! Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 09/03/24 Full Review Marc M It is almost impossible to imagine how a duller or more boring movie could have been made from what is fantastically dramatic and astounding source material. It is an interminably slow slog, with no payoff. Despised it. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 08/27/24 Full Review Raggie T Having loved David Grann's "Killers of the Flower Moon," both the book and the film, I dove into other books by the author and stumbled upon "Lost City of Z." I have to say, this book was incredibly hard to put down. It was like a binge-worthy TV show—every page had me hooked. As I read, my spirit of adventure was reignited, and I found myself reminiscing about past travels in South America and the Amazon, trying to connect with Colonel Percy Fawcett. The book had me daydreaming all day and night, completely engrossed in its adventure. was really torn about whether to watch the movie adaptation of "Lost City of Z." I wanted to see how the film portrayed the depth of the forest, the tribal costumes, and the illnesses, comparing it to the vivid images I’d built up in my mind. On the flip side, I loved the character and challenges I had imagined myself, without any screen influence. One lone night, when my movie partner (my wife) wasn’t around, I decided to give it a go. The deciding factor was the cast—Charlie Hunnam and Robert Pattinson, two actors I really enjoy watching. Those two ended up being the only reason that i can say i could sit through the movie in the end. Overall, the film felt pretty shallow—lacking real emotional depth, character development, and a strong plot direction. It seemed loosely inspired by historical events but missed the chance to delve deeper into the characters' lives and the complexities of the time period. Compared to the book, the film deviates significantly. The book intertwines two parallel journeys: one of Colonel Fawcett in the past and the other of author James Gray retracing Fawcett's route in modern times. These parallel stories, despite being separated by time, share similarities and challenges. This whole dynamic was missing from the film, leaving out a key element that could have added much more depth. The film's pacing was all over the place, with lazy dialogue and crucial details left out. For instance, one moment a companion is being eaten by piranhas, and the next, there’s no mention of him at all. The movie barely touches on the horrific illnesses or the unique traits of the tribes encountered. Overall, it felt like a hot mess, failing to do justice to a beautiful and riveting story. I don’t think I’ve ever been more let down by a film adaptation of a book. The film didn’t just fall short; it felt like it missed the essence of the book entirely. What made the book so compelling was its depth, the rich detail, and the way it captured the spirit of adventure and exploration. It’s frustrating when a film adaptation fails to live up to the highs of its literary counterpart, and this one was particularly disheartening because the potential was there, but it just didn’t deliver. 4/10 Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 08/27/24 Full Review Audience Member Charlie Hunnam was miscast as Fawcett. Needed to be either Daniel Day-Lewis or Christian Bale. Decent movie otherwise. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 06/21/24 Full Review Dan R Heard a lot about the movie before watching, not a bad story, the concept was great. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 05/08/24 Full Review Read all reviews

The Lost City of Z

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now