Although it's not my 'type' of film - I was partly expecting it to be somewhere between a serious Indiana Jones and a Rider Haggard yarn - I thought it might have been more thrilling than it turned out. It's more a tale of historical interest than anything else, of a story about which I was unfamiliar
Starting in the early years of last century and going up to 1924. it relates to a Colonel Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam) of the British army who hears of the existence of a city with an advanced civilisation in the Amazonian forest, and feels a compulsion to 'discover' it and make it known to the world. He makes three expeditions with all the usual features one might expect - untrustworthy fellow-travellers, confrontations with natives, battles against the elements, we've seen it all before.
The intervals between his voyages are significant and spread over several years - the second intermission covering his re-entry into army life for active service in World War I in which he experiences the Battle of the Somme. Meanwhile his wife (Sienna Miller) bears, in the end, three children, his eldest son accompanying him on his final quest, having by then attained adulthood. His faithful companion on his travels is played by Robert Pattinson.
Photography (especially the jungle scenes) and acting are generally as good as one might expect, though I found it sometimes hard to decipher quite what Sienna Miller was saying in her under-the-breath deliveries.
Additionally, I was a bit dismayed to find that on the soundtrack, Ravel's 'Lever du Jour' from his 'Daphnis et Chloe' was used not once, which might have been acceptable, but no less than four times, which really is pushing it - and not even one of those occasions was a sunrise! That feature struck me as being just lazy.
James Gray directs (and is screenplay writer for) a longish film at 2 hours 20 mins, which I suppose can be justified as there's a lot to pack in, but I was never gripped to the extent of being eager to know what was to happen next. I don't think it'll be lodging in my memory banks for very long.................5.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteSounds interesting. I usually like this type of story. Thanks for the warning about Sienna Miller's "under the breath" delivery of some of her lines. That's why I always use close captioning on all my films. I just watched "Moonlight" and believe me, I needed that close caption translate. I wouldn't have understood most of the film without it. Thanks again for another great review. Anyone paying you yet for this reviews?
Ron
I too thought that it would have been 'interesting', Ron, though it proved not to be so much, at least for me. Somehow it's made into a hum-drum tale despite there being so much going on that it ought to have been lifted into something really exciting. You may find it working for you, and I hope you will.
DeleteSienna Miller's role isn't of significant length. She stays at home while Hunnam keeps leaving her to macho-posture in South America, so her questionable speeches aren't such a big loss.
Because of the Z I thought this was another zombie movie.
ReplyDeleteThankfully this sounds a tad more interesting, plus .... Charlie Hunnam!
Give it a go, Bob. Most viewers on IMDb are giving it a better verdict than I do, though not spectacularly so. If they'd brought in a zombie or two it might have been improved as far as I'm concerned.
DeleteI kind of want to see this. I will add it to the DVD list I think.
ReplyDeleteI generally don't care for this kind of 'intrepid explorer' film, Sol. If you're not of my mind you'll probably enjoy it more than I did.
Delete