The Lost City of Z is based on a book about a man named Percy Fawcett who at the turn of century led several expeditions in Bolivia to find the ancient Lost City of Z. This might sound exciting but in truth this film is more like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre than an exciting exploration movie. You might also be able to compare it to the Revenant in the way it explores the harshness of another climate and culture. However, both Sierra Madre and the Revenant have something Lost City of Z does not have- a concise narrative and compelling script (especially Sierra Madre which has a masterful script).
In Lost City of Z we get the entire life of Percy Fawcett. This not only makes the movie very long but also quite sprawling in nature. We get 3 expeditions and a long war sequence wedged in between. If the movie decided to focus on one of these expeditions it would have been so much better. It would have had a clear goal and the accompanying challenges, heroes, villains, etc. Here it seems like every time the movie gets momentum you are back in London, or off to war, and then back again to the Amazon.
It’s the same way with the characters. Sienna Miller is good as Fawcett’s wife but we see her so intermittently that she basically becomes a ‘ra ra’ character for him. Robert Pattinson is good as his first mate but the script doesn’t really allow us to get to know him either. At one point in the story they are starving and we see suffering but I was left asking questions- why did they not bring enough food, what happened to the food, why did they not fish or hunt, what exactly are they looking for etc. If I was more invested in the characters than I wouldn’t have been asking those questions.
I know I have been very tough on this movie- probably more so than it deserves, but it has so much potential it is frustrating. I honestly think if the script had gotten a few more run-throughs and was made a little bit better it could have been one of the best of the year. As it is, it is an ambitious miss.
Overall Grade- C