So clunky and filled with holes

Rating: 1/10 (10 March 2019)

I normally watch even bad films through to the end in case they either get better or are so bad they are good. however, I think this is the first film I have ever watched where after an hour and ten minutes I was so disinterested that I just gave up. This was not only because of the pace of the film, but also because there were just so many mistakes with the editing, the story, the character's behaviour, the timelines, plausibility - almost everything really. For example (in no particular order):
1. They are on a hunt, the stag they are chasing heads one way, then our hero decides to veer off to one side to enter a forest. Why? 'Don't do it!' cries a colleague. Why? Miraculously the stag seems to have magically appeared in this forest and evidently stands conveniently still rather than running off when he hears the horse coming, and so no sooner has Fawcett entered the forest than he is able to take a good shot at it and kill it. After this, he is feted as a hero by all and sundry. Again, why? None of it made sense.
2. Two horses with riders fall over as they chase the stag. Why?
3. Fawcett and his wife are lying next to each other talking in bed. She raises herself up and says something. Then the camera cuts to a different angle and suddenly she is sitting up half way down the bed. Clunky editing!
4. Fawcett first meets Henry Costin on the ship, but only after, for no reason at all, Costin stalks him on the boat and Fawcett hides behind a door to catch him. Huh? And this after already being on the boat for a week? Huh? Both knew they would be working together so why not just say hello on day 1? Made no sense at all.
5. The raft manged to float upwater, no paddling required.
6. Random people appeared on the raft who were suddenly crew members.
7. One crew member randomly threatens our leader with a huge knife for no reason. He has the knife up against his throat. Camera cuts to another angle and now he is lunging from a distance, giving time for Costin to shoot him in the ear (huh?). Then we never see that man again. Made no sense.
8. Natives kill a disposable crew member with the first arrow. They then launch what seems like 100 arrows a minute at the raft and can't hit anybody. Fawcett stands there with his arms open and every arrow misses him, and all the other crew members too. He holds a book up to his face and an arrow then conveniently hits the book. He stays there, relying on their good nature not to hit him again. Has he got a death wish? That isn't bravery, it is stupidity.
9. They reach the source of the river, thousands of miles upstream, on what seems like Day 2 of their journey. It turns out to be a big waterfall. Did they not think that maybe the river carries on back from above the waterfall?
10. James Murray is supposed to have been Shackleton's 2nd in command but is fat, and in the jungle a complete wimp, unable to carry his pack without moaning it was too heavy. He then decides it is safer to run away rather than stay with his colleagues. All completely unrealistic.
11. At the scientific academy presentation, half the room seems to be jeering and mocking Fawcett's proposal that there were advanced civilisations in the jungle right up until the last minute, then he says one thing and they all, in unison, cheer wildly and throw their hats in the air. Huh?
12. In the jungle, Fawcett gets a letter from his wife advising he has had a son. First he gets Costin to read it because it would be too 'painful to read' (huh?), then he learns he has a son and barely reacts, then he take the letter and burns it in the fire. Why?
13. Half way down the river a crew member suddenly gets out some more letters from family and hands them round. Why not do this when the letters first arrived?
14. Fawcett gets back from his first trip and his son, who looks about 3 months older than when he left, now doesn't recognise him.
15. What was the point of the 'opera in the jungle' scene? Why did they bring fully costumed European opera singers to the jungle?
16. Fawcett appears to speak the language of everyone he encounters, including remote Amazon tribes people. Totally implausible.
17. His native assistant speaks Spanish but understands English perfectly but can't speak English. Why not? Fawcett understands English and can speak Spanish but only talks to him in English. Huh?
18. If you thought the trip to the source of the Amazon was quick, the trip back was so quick you didn't even see it. He turned away from the waterfall towards the raft then bingo, suddenly, he was in England.
19. At one point as Fawcett was pushing the raft to shore, a man in jeans leading a horse on the riverbank was clearly in shot for a good few seconds, right over his shoulder. Who was he? Where did the horse come from? If he wasn't supposed to be there how could the cameraman, director and editor all failed to have seen him, and what was he there for?
I could go on. There were just so many plausibility issues you could not enjoy the film as a narrative. I could also see that the film was so badly edited that the enjoyment was being sucked out of it. I couldn't see it through to the finish. My journey ended.