|
Post by Hannah Lee on Feb 17, 2017 1:04:25 GMT
Have you all seen that Lost City of Z is coming out soon? This was a project that Benedict was attached to, and then dropped out as the schedule shifted around. (I think the reports were that it started filming on location around the time his son was born?) They had a premiere in London recently, and I've seen some trailers here and there: The Lost City of Z Trailer 1This trailer doesn't really draw me in, though it has some hints of its beautiful settings. It has been getting some pretty good reviews, with a round up of links here: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lost_city_of_z/For example, from Todd McCarthy at The Hollywood Reporter, who also notes strong performances:
Anyone here looking forward to this one?
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Feb 17, 2017 1:47:18 GMT
I'm a big fan of James Gray, so I will probably be seeing this one. I wish Benedict could have been in the Lost City of Z, but real life, which is always more important, intervened.
|
|
|
Post by igs on Feb 17, 2017 8:26:01 GMT
I was never interested in this movie in the first place, so I'm not sad Benedict dropped it. Charlie Hunnam looks quite good (and physically very Tom Hardy-ish, I've never thought that before) but that's about it.
I feel like this explorer man (Hunnam, forget the character name) is framed as some kind of a hero searching for the Holy Grail of cities. But that "Lost City of Z" is nothing particularly extraordinary. There are tons of civilizations like that in the Amazon, and there would be 10 times more if it weren't for men like this, who went there and brought diseases and tried to "find answers" for whatever questions. I wanted to shout at Hunnam in that trailer to just listen to the "villains" (ie. the parliament members or whoever) and leave well enough alone. So their reasons "they're savages" were condescending, but they were inadvertently doing the better choice. The only interesting thing about the movie is that Hunnam and his companions went missing.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Feb 17, 2017 9:26:58 GMT
I haven't seen the trailer, but I know what you mean about the story. I've always had misgivings about it. Portraying a European man "exploring" an area that has been populated for centuries by indigenous people seems sounds like the kind of film I thought we had left behind. I hope this is different. I do like James Gray, so I'm going to give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Feb 18, 2017 16:17:05 GMT
I have seen the trailer, traying to picture Benedict in it, but it didn't seem particularly interesting to me. Will go to see it anyway, I guess. (Just as I went to see Crimson Peak, lol, and be glad Benedict dropped it).
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Feb 21, 2017 15:25:42 GMT
I haven't seen the trailer, but I know what you mean about the story. I've always had misgivings about it. Portraying a European man "exploring" an area that has been populated for centuries by indigenous people seems sounds like the kind of film I thought we had left behind. I hope this is different. I do like James Gray, so I'm going to give it a try. I always had some misgivings about the film in that I thought it would be ridiculously too expensive relative to a potential audience, but I really don't hold with this super over-sensitivity re the white man "exploring" somewhere where there were indigenous people as if there was something inherently evil with that in principle. Of course there wasn't. According to that too narrow thinking, it would have been inherently evil for anyone of any nationality, ever, to have gone to see what might be in the next village let alone to have made boats to go to see what might be out there in the greater unknown. Apart from anything else, Fawcett didn't even actually go to "explore" per se, he was sent there to make maps. There is an issue re disease and the native people, but that wasn't understood at the time. And the extremity of that damage was done long before through the conquistadors. But much as I had reservations about the financial feasibility of it, I was always quite interested in the film. I thought there was a chance it might be James Gray's breakthrough to a deserved greater recognition. And so it might have been with BC, but I think it's far less likely with Charlie Hunnam, even though the reception so far seems to have been good. I've watched the trailers, and visually it looks very interesting, but I've been very put off by Charlie Hunnam's speaking voice in it. The accent and way of speaking is so forced and fake, it's just terrible. It had me cringing, it was so bad, and that doesn't make for a good viewing experience. I don't suppose that will matter to the American audience, or to the French (the French like James Gray), but it's put me off really quite badly.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Feb 21, 2017 20:57:25 GMT
What was it that bothered you? Is it the wrong regional accent? Is he trying to sound posh and failing? Do you think he's been in the U.S. too long and is losing his English accent? It does sound like he's giving a speech or yelling in the clips I heard. Maybe his normal speaking voice will be better.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 21, 2017 22:24:54 GMT
I agreed with dreamsincolour about the "exploring" thing. The story is real and we should never ignore things that really happened. Of course, we should expect the story to be tell in a mature non-simplistic way.
The book and the New Yorker article are fantastic and one thing that I really loved about them is how they present the clash between old ideals vs. new ones. Fawcett was the last explorer from a romantic era who actually did important discoverings (for the Western world, at least) and was a decent guy but he was also a joke to his more scientific oriented peers. Then there is a part in which the book describes how easily some charlatans sold the idea that spiritism was something scientific with men who see themselves as very rational men like Conan Doyle actually believing in extremely silly things like fairies! It was science and the future and not legends about fantastic creatures in the Amazon by crazy explorers!
About the indigenous people, there is this part, in the article, in which the writer talks with an old native woman who met Fawcett which is really interesting. When she was a kid she lived in horrible conditions thanks to the (very scientific) project of Brazilian government to "civilize" and "educate" indigenous people. Apparently Fawcett with his considered at the time old views of the world was shocked by the conditions and he hardly criticize them. Ironically, the writer describes how the modern government is now trying to fix the old errors with programs designed to force the same people to keep ancient traditions that they actually never knew!
So even when the book is about the fascination with old time adventurers exploring exotic places it's also IMO very thoughtful about it and the world in which he lived and we live nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Feb 22, 2017 2:55:08 GMT
What was it that bothered you? Is it the wrong regional accent? Is he trying to sound posh and failing? Do you think he's been in the U.S. too long and is losing his English accent? It does sound like he's giving a speech or yelling in the clips I heard. Maybe his normal speaking voice will be better. The trying to sound pukka, and failing, is pretty close to it (it offends me to use the word "posh"). I don't remember him yelling off the top of my head, but it was the speechifying voice that was teeth gratingly bad. Fawcett will have been very pukka, and the way people spoke at that time was quite different to modern speech as well. It was more pukka than would be counted as that now, and somewhat more formal and stilted and pedantic sounding too (yet still natural). And CH was clearly trying to go for that slightly pedantic sound, but missed it by a mile. He didn't even sound as if he was using a natural voice, it just sounded peculiarly affected in an unrealistic way that didn't even sound pukka. James Gray, being American, of course, won't have had an ear for what would sound right. It won't likely bother other audiences either, but it has bothered me a lot, because it gave me a reaction like re fingernails grating on a blackboard.
|
|
|
Post by igs on Feb 22, 2017 4:53:05 GMT
I agreed with dreamsincolour about the "exploring" thing. The story is real and we should never ignore things that really happened. Of course, we should expect the story to be tell in a mature non-simplistic way. I agree in general, I just don't have personal interest in that storyline. Although the main reason I didn't want BC in this were the at the time insane budget and what I perceived as a certainty to flop. I think the trailer portrays Fawcett as some daring hero that has to fight against the windmills (the evil government and his nagging wife, how original) to be allowed his exploration. Maybe that's just the impression it gives me though. The accent doesn't bother me, I don't know what "pukka" means or what it should sound like.
|
|