Of this movie, I will say this: it inspired me to look up details about the REAL Percy Fawcett because, yes, this film is based on a true story.
The Blurb:
At the dawn of the 20th century, British explorer Percy Fawcett journeys into the Amazon, where he discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment, which views indigenous populations as savages, the determined Fawcett, supported by his devoted wife, son, and aide-de-camp, returns to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case.
What Worked:
A lot of the reviews that I read about this movie after I watched it all mentioned one thing that I agree with: it LOOKS gorgeous. I mean that much less in the drone-shot sweeping-vistas manner of most jungle-movies in this day and age, and much more in the way this movie lived off of rich, textured browns and vibrant greens, dirty faces, and worn leather.
It’s also about a *genuinely* fascinating subject that I had honestly never heard about. That’s always a gold mine for me. And that fact that it was about ancient civilizations in the jungle made it even more exciting.
The locations look authentic, the acting is adequate, and the story is intriguing. Should be a winner, yes?
What Didn’t Work:
Then, why am I left kind of sighing and shaking my head at the end of this movie.
I think, in large part, it has to do with Charlie Hunnham, who plays Percy Fawcett. He’s just not that interesting of an actor. I can also SEE the efforts he’s making, and there’s just not quite enough charm in his eyes or smile to compel me to let it slide. Some people swear by him in Sons of Anarchy, and I have to confess I haven’t seen that show–once I do, I may very well change my mind about him–but what I have seen of him (including Pacific Rim) is just not all that interesting. I’m not convinced he can carry a movie.
It’s not all on his shoulders, however. Some of this movie’s flaws are in the script and the direction, too. It’s just not all that interesting.
Not enough HAPPENS in the movie. The pace is glacially slow. Not once did I ever actually lean forward and believe they were in true danger. Not once. There was no rise and fall to the action, just a steady plodding, clip clop, marching towards an end that I could not fathom what it was going to be (in a bad way).
And that’s another thing: be prepared for the fact that this movie has no real ending, which is maddening. Yes, this is because of certain circumstances in real life, which I’ll do my best not to spoil for you…but suddenly the movie is just kind of over. Just like that.
I never believed we were in danger. I never understood what Fawcett had possibly done to piss off or even fix his reputation back home, even those conflicts just seem to kind of float on by…I wished we got to see more of an EXPANSE of where they were in Brazil, to give me a truer sense of the scale of what they’d done. As it is, it’s rather unimpressive-seeming. They paddle up a river and meet some natives.
This film is a bit frustrating because it seems like it *should* have been much better. I don’t have an issue with them going for a more understated and “classic” approach to the movie. I like that, actually…but even Lawrence of Arabia worked its ass off to push the plot along and give as many shots as they could to visually explain how inhospitable and massive the desert was these people were living and dying in. Z is too small, and too boring, unfortunately, and it ultimately ends up being a movie you can nap through.
6 out of 10 – meh