hanshotfirst1138

Around here, that's kind of an achievement.

dex14

<iframe width="605" height="340" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hjqtP459uo8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

dex14

<iframe width="656" height="359" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xUsoYmkqGn8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Defiant1

This movie sounded so much more interesting when Brad Pitt or Benedict Cumberbatch were going to star in it. Who they eventually got is such a massive downgrade. Wonder why they're downplaying Robert Pattinson in the ads? He's by far the most recognizable name in the cast.

GoldenJCJ

^ Charlie Hunnam has massive appeal to the female audience. The rest of us just see a terrible actor.

I don't know what to make of the trailers yet. The subject matter seems incredibly interesting but the trailers so far have been lackluster. It just looks boring.

Osiris3657

This comes out next week. The trailer was also kind of "meh" to me, but it's doing really well with critics. Nearly 50 reviews and sitting pretty at 88%.

dex14

Bump. This is expanding this weekend. I'd like to check it out if I have time.

Osiris3657

This was pretty good. Had no idea Spiderman was in this (he plays Hunnam's son), so that was cool. Hunnam was great, as was the rest of the cast. It did feel very old school, like a classic adventure flick from the 30's or 40's. The musical score contributed alot to that.

I recommend it and give it 4 stars.

Dr. DVD

Caught this today. Liked it a lot. However, it's definitely more of an "art house" movie than anything else , so it won't be for everyone. Hunnam did himself a favor by opting out of the 50 Shades franchise. He's better than that material. High hopes for Holland as well now, he can be more than Spider-Man if he gets the roles between those movies.

Defiant1

I'm quoting myself because I saw this movie today. I'll take back what I said about Charlie Hunnam. I thought he was really good in this movie. Maybe because he got to act in his native accent this time, instead of his atrocious American one. Sienna Miller plays the long-suffering wife again (is she Hollywood's go to actress for this kind of role?), but at least this time they give her more to do with some agency.

The Lost City of Z clocks in around 2.5 hours, and definitely feels like it with its methodical pacing. There is definitely a contemporary, more enlightened overarching outlook on the movie's themes of exploration, colonialism, and imperialism. I wonder if the real life explorer was as politically correct as the one that Charlie plays.

I was also surprised that a lot of the movie (at least half) takes place in England. Going in, I figured we'd get an intro in England with some exposition and then into the jungle for the rest, sort of like the underrated The Ghost and the Darkness. I would have preferred more jungle scenes, as the environment looks stunning on film and frankly, there aren't that many movies take take place in that setting.

I don't think I'd watch it again or buy it but overall a pretty good movie, with its contemplative view towards exploring the unknown and the effect it has on the explorer and the world around him.

Daytripper

Watched it tonight and thought it was terrific. A definite contender for one of 2017's best IMO. I don't get all the Hunnam hate, he was great in this. Would rather see him than Brad Pitt. Pattinson was quite good too for what little he was given with. It is a supporting role. Hell, even Miller was good (don't get all the hate for her either). It's sad that this film was released so early in the year and didn't do all that well at the box-office. Had it been released in the Fall, I could see a few technical Oscar nominations. Best Cinematography for sure.