New Film - Lost City of Z

[Von Stroheim]

Trailer for film  Lost City of Z



Not sure if this is the right posting very 'Pulp' but based on true story looks rather good

[von Lucky]

I have read the book, it's depressing. Let's hope the movie is as dark as that. (On first impressions it looks good.)

[flags_of_war]

Looks a decent movie

[wulfgar22]

Always been fascinated by the Fawcett story...this looks like it could be good.

[warrenpeace]

Certainly a good book. Look forward to this movie.

[Hammers]

 Phwoaar! I can't understand how this has escaped my radar until now...

[WillieB]

No longer available due to Amazon claim?

[Hammers]

No longer available due to Amazon claim?

Is that a fact or a pun?

[WillieB]

Is that a fact or a pun?

It's what I get when I click the link, so at least in my universe it's a fact.

[Arthur]

The film got a theatrical release over here in Paris three weeks ago. I've seen it and have mixed feelings about it although I think the positive outweighs the negative in the end. On the whole, I liked it and I think it has a haunting quality that stays with you and helps the film overcome some obvious flaws.

Be warned though : anyone expecting a thrilling adventure yarn is bound to be disappointed. The tone is decidedly on the dark and melancholy side and this being a James Gray movie (think Little Odessa and We Own The Night), there's a strong emphasis on the theme of filiation and fraught father/son relationships. In a sense, this is less a tale of exploration than the story of men going abroad to exorcise the ghost of a father figure that has been their burden throughout their entire lives.  

Despite the occasional Indian attack and the WW1 segment, the film is more about failure and frustration than action itself : some people have interpreted Fawcett's story as a mental rather than physical journey and I think that's an apt description of what the film is trying to achieve. If you must compare, Z is much closer to Werner Herzog's Aguirre than Raiders of the Lost Ark, so set your expectations accordingly.

[warrenpeace]

You have invoked the HORROR, sir! Even the mention of Werner Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God causes me to cringe. That was one of the least enjoyable movies that I have ever seen. But without having seen the movie version of Lost City of Z, I can still see the comparison with the events described in the book.

[Arthur]

You have invoked the HORROR, sir!

Should I call you Mr Kurtz when we meet at the river's end ? 

[carlos marighela]

Curiously it seems they shot the film in Colombia rather than Brazil. I suppose a jungle is a jungle to Hollywood and it probably worked out better for the actors' rider in the green room.

Fawcett was a loon but it is amusing that they've chosen to portray him with an actor two or three decades younger than his actual age.

[Arthur]

There's nothing particularly curious about choosing Colombia as James Gray addressed the location issue in several interviews. He originally wanted to shoot in Brazil but that would have proved a logistical nightmare since the places that still look like the ones Fawcett explored are apparently so remote as to be totally impractical given the film's relatively limited budget - keep in mind Z is an independent production, not a big-budget Hollywood extravaganza. Bolivia had the right landscapes but no film infrastructure, so Colombia ultimately proved to be the right compromise between scenery and logistics.    

Re the leading man, Brad Pitt - who's about the right age for the part - was originally slated to play Fawcett but dropped out of the project, although he remained on board as a producer via Plan B, his production company. Benedict Cumberbatch was approached but declined, and Charlie Hunnam was then suggested to Gray by Plan B. Despite being much younger than Fawcett, he was felt to be right for the part and I tend to agree, though I think a better and more charismatic actor would have added more depth to the character.    

[carlos marighela]

There's nothing particularly curious about choosing Colombia as James Gray addressed the location issue in several interviews. He originally wanted to shoot in Brazil but that would have proved a logistical nightmare since the places that still look like the ones Fawcett explored are apparently so remote as to be totally impractical given the film's relatively limited budget - keep in mind Z is an independent production, not a big-budget Hollywood extravaganza. Bolivia had the right landscapes but no film infrastructure, so Colombia ultimately proved to be the right compromise between scenery and logistics.    

Re the leading man, Brad Pitt - who's about the right age for the part - was originally slated to play Fawcett but dropped out of the project, although he remained on board as a producer via Plan B, his production company. Benedict Cumberbatch was approached but declined, and Charlie Hunnam was then suggested to Gray by Plan B. Despite being much younger than Fawcett, he was felt to be right for the part and I tend to agree, though I think a better and more charismatic actor would have added more depth to the character.    

Hmm, James Gray is full of shit then. Whilst it's true that much of the Mato Grosso has become agricultural land there are significant chunks of land that are quite accessible and quite pretty much untouched. Presumably he's never heard of the Chapada dos Guimarães National Park? Hardly inaccessible.

For that matter I have friends who holiday every year on the Araguaia in upper Goias, there are some fantastic river beaches. If he wanted virgin chunks of forest then there's endless expanses of it in Amazonas and every second tourist seems to want to spend a night in a jungle lodge. I doubt he had the same budget as a GAP year student or some bozo backpacker.

Cost I can understand and I suspect that's the honest answer. Colombia is a cheaper country and labour costs are lower. Pity. It doesn't put me off seeing it but it seems sad he couldn't find a way to shoot the film in the country it was set.