Charlie Hunnam 2X This Weekend

lostcityofzkingarthur   I decided to rent a few movies this weekend, Lost City of Z and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, because a part of me wanted to see if they deserved the lack of interest during opening weekend and long after they left the theater.  My overall general conclusion for both movies is no, but I do have a few suggestions along the way I believe would have made them better.  If you haven’t seen the movies yet, and can tolerate the minor mishaps I comment on, then by all means, watch them because I did and survived.

This blog contains general spoilers for those not familiar with these stories.

I watched Lost City of Z first, on a Friday night, when I was boned tired.  It probably wasn’t the greatest time to watch a 141 minute long movie, but I did it anyway.  The story is about the British explorer among his many other titles, Percival (Percy) Fawcett, and his repeated attempts at discovering a lost city in South America he believes exists.  His explorations take him deep into the Amazon where insects and animals are not the only ones to prove dangerous.   The script, written by James Gray, is based on the book by David Grann, The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon.  It is also directed by Gray.  The main cast is Charlie Hunnam as Percy Fawcett, Robert Pattinson as Henry Costin, Angus Macfadyen as James Murray, Sienna Miller as Nina Fawcett, and Tom Holland as Jack Fawcett.

A movie of this magnitude would have done well for itself by splitting it into two to capture adequately all the parts of the story or going back into the script and focus on one or two parts of the story.  The heart of this movie should have focused on exploration and survival meaning the majority of the story should have concentrated on Fawcett’s time in the Amazon.

The veins found in the arms and legs of any story are important, sub-stories so to speak, but were too haphazardly thrown into the main story to make it beneficial.  The letter correspondence between Fawcett’s wife and himself could have proven to be touching, but all you really got was voice over in the end.  I’m not expecting love letters to be written between Percy and Nina because that is not what this story is about nor do I think this was in his nature to write these kinds of letters.  I mean here was a husband and father who was away from his family where he missed significant parts of raising his children.  It might have given him a little more depth to know the part of him that was not steeped in his desire for exploration did exist.  Movies are known to sometimes stray from actual events in order to improve it.

The scenes relating to the World War I did not advance the story in any meaningful way although I’m more undecided about the debates over the authenticity and purpose of his missions.  I think it would have been just as sufficient to have a single antagonist before he went on his first mission as seen in the movie to comment on the sentiment during that time when non-white people were viewed as savages.  I wasn’t turned off by his speech later in the movie, but it wasn’t a make it or break it scene for me.

There’s quite a of span of time between his missions so titles referring to a timeline, dates in particular, would’ve been helpful.  This coupled with smoother transitions between the locations in the Amazon to his home in England would have made it appear less choppy and more tolerable.

The last scene of the movie was neither here nor there for me.  It didn’t have the same kind of impact as the other parts of the movie.  I think because it didn’t solely focus on Fawcett and his son, Jack, and what was clearly obvious to them.  By the end of this film, I realized I could’ve had a little more insight into the workings of Percy Fawcett as a person.  I wonder how it would’ve played out had Brad Pitt or Benedict Cumberbatch took the role instead.  I’m not saying this was sub-par because of Charlie Hunnam because it was far from it.  He’s a good actor with adequate range so yes, I recommend this movie.


I watched King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, on a Saturday morning, when I was still bone-tired.  This too proved to be somewhat of a challenge, but not as much due to the pacing of it, and it was 126 minutes.  The story is about the son of King Uther Pendragon, Arthur, who sends him away in a boat to safety, after he is attacked by his own brother, Vortigern.  It is in the brothels where Arthur is raised and ultimately finds his true power and calling when he reaches adulthood.  It is directed by Guy Ritchie who also had a hand in the script along with several others, and for all intents and purposes it is a “not think too hard” kind of movie.  The main cast is Charlie Hunnam as Arthur, Jude Law and Vortigern, Eric Bana as Uther, Djimon Hounsou as Bedivere, and Astrid Bergès-Frisbey as The Mage, Aiden Gillen as Bill, and Tom Wu as George.

This is a typical Guy Ritchie film with traits of a catchy soundtrack and scenes where he likes to incorporate time sped up or replaying how things actually happened.  I was not bothered by the CGI effects although this bothers some people immensely.  I can suspend reality and say those are actually gigantic elephants destroying castles and bridges or those look like actual sets even though I know they are not.

The story continues with Arthur finding friendship and loyalty among his peers including a prostitute named Lucy.  He protects her until she needs no more protection, but soon finds his own life is in peril.  I personally liked the character of Vortigern.  He seeks the one thing he will never have when compared to Arthur and that is power and how he gets his power.  The gross looking sea creatures that entice whoever will listen to them were also my favorites.

Arthur escapes the fate brought upon him by Vortigern when he receives help from The Mage.  He then goes through rejection and attraction to the sword until he finally accepts his fate his father bestowed upon him when he died.  The power of the sword, Excalibur, is realized during a fight when all seems lost.  There are more chase and fight scenes to carry the movie to a satisfactory end.  It includes enough sorcery to advance the story.  The ending is predictable due to the story, but even without knowing the full story, it is set up where you can deduce what will happen.  Arthur goes on to fight his uncle, Vortigern, for the crown.  The sword finally belongs to him, and he is surrounded by his most loyal friends.  He bears the crown his father once wore and starts the next chapter of his life.


kong skull island

If you didn’t stop reading this blog, then you actually got to the good or should I say bad when compared to other King Kong movies.  While I enjoyed watching King Kong in action and the gigantic animals and insects, it was the dialogue that was hard to ignore.  John C. Reilly, John Goodman, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, and the rest of the cast did as best they could with the material.  Maybe, I am being too harsh.  It is another “not think too hard” movie.  The best part was seeing Miyavi, the actor who did such a great job in Unbroken, and who I hope is in more movies and not just for two minutes.  If you want to see this solely based on the fact you like King Kong, then watch it.  If you are expecting something else, then don’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: