It's nothing more than a 6/10

It's nothing more than a 6/10
It also has the most forced feminist dialogue in a scene that makes other look like amateur hour.

>the most forced feminist dialogue
I thought it wasn't feminist at all. Her role was to take care of the children and that's what she accepted eventually.

Did you watch it with a female? I'm not even against feminism but the scene and the characters turmoil life and everything there is a feminism sucker story and why feminism exists because they used to be treated as inferior.

I'd honestly give it a 5/10. Pretty disappointed.

>they used to be treated as inferior.
but they are. Fawcett was 100% right that she couldn't make it in the jungle. She would have been a liability like Murray.

The book was fantastic. The movie sucked. Too much about the wife and not enough about the horrors of the jungle

Basically no one could make it in that jungle. Definitely not a woman. Thats why he was so impressive. Also, many men died during rescue missions looking for Fawcett

>Horrors of the jungle
This. There were none.

I read the first few chapters and it seemed entertaining but pretty pedestrian.

Seriously the first movie i fell asleep on in my 28 years of living

So fuckin boring

plebs everywhere

Seriously. Especially this guy How fucking pathetic.

Yes but Jane Goodal could make it in the jungle. Nobody is arguing what happened wasn't true but its the type of talk that lead to voting rights

I haven't seen this yet, but wasn't the whole point of the film that Z is metaphorical, that he's searching for something to validate himself the whole time? That's the gist I got from discussions when it came out. I'm guessing his wife's unhappiness but acceptance of her lot in life is meant to mirror his own doomed quest for fulfillment because he can't accept that Z doesn't exist. Am I close?

I liked it but fucking christ he can't do a proper English accent to save his life. He sounds like an American doing a parody impression. Which is odd because he is actually English. Constantly took me out of the movie.

Also going in I thought it was going to be an adventure movie or something, I liked that it turned out to be much more of a character study.

Nah this was like Aguirre Wrath of God part 2 for plebs

Jane Goodall's first expedition was in 1960.

I know that this is low quality bait, but your overuse of the word "pleb" is causing it to loose all meaning. Please stop.

Exactly when feminism was just getting going

That was the intent, but executed poorly.

I dont think he was looking to validate himself or anything, he was just obsessed with finding Z but he neglects his family and ends up getting himself and his son killed.

I'm just saying the world had been explored to death, there were more cures to diseases, etc.

But if he got killed how would the pocket watch have gotten back to the guy from the exploration society?

I guess it's supposed to be ambiguous in the movie but I got curious and googled it and in real life they just found his watch in the jungle, so as far as I'm concerned he's dead.

>James Greyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

at least that faggot Thor isn't here anymore forcing him and that fucking post-irony shit

Oh, well then they completely changed that for the movie. The watch getting sent back was supposed to imply he was alive because he said he would send it back if he found the city.

At this point I'd take ironic faux patrician trips Sup Forums over Sup Forums-lite Sup Forums

That's why I think it's supposed to be ambiguous, he did say he would send it back but it was also heavily implied they got eaten by cannibals. In the encounter with the other cannibal tribe early in the movie they said they ate their dead so their spirits could find rest, and the chief of the tribe that captured Fawcett said they should find a home for his spirit. Thats why I think they ate him.

It's called symbolism. The movie implied the inhabitants killed him in the city.