Robert Lalonde’s review published on Letterboxd:
It's going on two years of completely hating on cinema for the most part; or it would seem that way to most people. You can almost classify recent reviews as "rantings of a mad man" or "verbal blurts during viewings". Even my political writing just stopped along with my screenplay writing, because I just don't feel it anymore. It seems like people are projecting what they want something to be on projects that wouldn't have ever garnered that much respect in any other era. Even when the reviews flooded in for The Hateful Eight; I couldn't just go with the flow (and we all know what Quentin means to me).
I can see why audiences are grasping to anything that seems even remotely "fresh" at the moment, but a lot of the time it seems like it towards the wrong projects. Trying to make a film that looks like it's from the 70's is completely missing the point of the entire decade. And a massive case and point is right here in The Lost City of Z. There is none of the emotion or heart or desire to prove something with this. Which is really sad because not only was I wanting this to be good, one of the finest young men of his generation gives another stellar performance in it.
Robert Pattinson has been on one hell of a role; and it's a role that for the most part has been limited to supporting. This man needs to start getting the big stuff with the heavy hitters in the underground and slightly off kilter. We saw his powerhouse performance in Cosmopolis and Cronenberg and others need to harness that again. His performance in last years Childhood of a Leader was also something to stand up and take notice at.
He embodies everything we want in an explorer as he morphs into his amazing perforce as Henry Costin. And the cameo by Franco Nero is also something to get cinephiles warm inside. The problem with the acting is everyone around these two. Giving what I can only describe as a "straight to video performance"; Charlie Hunnam is quickly becoming one of the most punchable looking faces since Ted Cruz. There isn't an ounce of empathy for this man. There just isn't anything. Unlikable characters can be the best parts of films; his performance here was nothing at all though. It wasn't even unlikable, it was just painful. A strong cast is what a standard screenplay like this needed to escalate it to something more and only Pattinson could pull it off.
The writing seemed like a direct transfer from book to screen while forgetting the screen requires so much more. The screenplay didn't add any emotion, frankly it seemed to forget it wasn't just a book and the actors needed more direction to give this more. Because Charlie could have done exactly what was written, but then that says even more about his acting abilities and the screenplay itself.
The lighting and directing also seemed off, in not adding to the story at all. It took away from the story frankly and made the focus pulling even harder. A lot of the focus and cinematography 70's flashbacks we not properly used and added more distraction from an already distraction heavy picture.
I'll give it to James Grey; he has ambition, just not the talent to pull it off. A film that should have been gorgeous just fell as flat as Light Between Oceans, Arrival, Patterson and Personal Shopper for me. There is no lasting power to any of these films and by the end of the year if we are talking about this it will be because of Pattinson.
I get audiences want more... so ask for it! Stop just accepting mediocrity as genius and take a step back and ask yourself if it's actually good and well made or if you are projecting something onto it that it clearly isn't.
If it were only half the film Aguirre The Wrath of God or Embrace The Serpent were... To all of you that think this is brilliant I highly recommend you watch or revisit those and see how it can properly be done.