La cité perdue de Z

That the movie succeeds is a credit to Hunnam, who comes of age both literally and figuratively in this movie with a performance of great humility, charm, and grit. A far cry from his breakout role as a motorcycle gang leader, and an even further cry from his awkward performance in Guy Ritchie's unique (and hopefully never-to-be-repeated) view of young King Arthur as a slum thug.

Props to audiences worldwide who are connecting with a 2 hour and 20 minute opus that is as far from the new Transformers attempt as the earth is from the moon. Shows that quality film-making will always find an audience.

Would have been nice if the script were historically accurate but perhaps that is asking too much.

Ironically, because of the internet, the amount of solid new archaeological evidence being released each 24 hours in today's world would be the equivalent of ten years of time in Fawcett's era. In particular, I am referring to the material of late which suggests lost civilizations submerged in both the Atlantic and the Pacific over 12,000 years ago (see Graham Hancock's lectures for more, most free on Youtube) would explain how Brazil, centered between the two, could indeed have hosted a "lost city" which, thousands of years ago, entertained guests from both realms.

Finally -- for hard-core history buffs only -- the written diagrams preserved even today in the Archives of Rio de Janeiro ("Folio #512") which constitute the last known "communication" from the ACTUAL final, ill-fated, Fawcett expedition were discredited because "experts" of the day claimed they contained elements of different language roots, not one root, and hence "must" be fake. However, if indeed the area was a centerpoint between two now-lost civilizations originating in two different oceans, the multiple language roots would be expected and natural, and not an indication of fraud. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

I was so hyped for this movie after I read the book. What a let down , this should have been a throwback to the the classic Hollywood epics of the past. Instead it's kind of a bore, scenes set in jungle are amazing but there are too many slow drawn out parts that deal with drama back in civilization.

The acting by Hunnam is mediocre at best, Sienna Miller gives a great performance too bad she's not in more of the movie.

Overall it's not horrible but it's also just average

I'm sad to say that I was disappointed by this film in almost every aspect. It seems to me that the biggest problem it has is the pacing. For a two and a half hour long film, pacing is important to keep the viewers engaged and this movie just gets it completely wrong. It feels like three movies clumsily stuffed into one, and as if that wasn't enough, it adds a bunch of utterly irrelevant scenes which could have easily been cut out of the movie entirely. I, for one, was expecting to see at least some beautiful cinematography, but the movie fails to deliver even in the aesthetic aspect. I was also expecting to see a lot more of the actual journey to the Amazon, but instead we got scene after boring scene in England, where nothing of importance really happens. After about an hour and a half I was left wondering how so many critics found this movie watchable, desperately trying not to fall asleep. To make matters even worse, Charlie Hunnam delivers an awful performance and makes for an overall uninteresting lead. Surprisingly, the only performance worth watching in this film was, out of all people, Robert Pattinson. I'm certainly glad he's moving away from his Twilight years and I hope to see him in more roles like this one in the future. Overall, this was a forgettable, boring, mess of a movie.

I really enjoyed this movie. I didn't know anything about the true story and had not read the book it is based on, so I don't have any complaints about accuracy and I didn't compare it to the book. So from the point of view of a simple movie watcher, it was a great movie.

The cast, locations, costumes, sets etc. were all great. The story was very enjoyable and it seemed quite authentic to its time period. With a running time of 2hr 20mins it could have ran the risk of being long-winded and boring, but it kept my interest the entire time. I didn't think it felt like a long movie. I'd only seen Charlie Hunnam and Robert Pattinson in a couple of movies before this, but I think they played quite different roles to usual and were both very good, as was the entire cast. If you're not going to get hung up on historical accuracy and just watch it as a movie than I highly recommend giving it a chance.

An American biographical adventure; A story about a man who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century aiming for a city he called 'Z' and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. It's a film that resembles, in style, exploration film epics of the mid-20th century. Charlie Hunnam gives a well measured performance as the British geographer, Army Major, and explorer Percy Fawcett. The story centres on passion and determination and obsession and escape but also the losses suffered by leaving home - his growing family and dutiful wife - in service of fantastical dreams. It is a biopic by numbers of a troublesome topic because Fawcett's history has many critics. Nonetheless, it is a stately adventure despite the slow pacing.