Mortal Engines (2018) User Reviews

Star Wars with a good helping of Goofy

[Snootz · 6/10 · 11 March 2019]

After reading many of the reviews here I see a widely split audience. I can understand why, however I believe that those who condemn this with 1 & 2 stars are really being unfair. Seriously-- they're comparing this with the worst movies in history? Perhaps a bit less emotional cinematic balance is in order.

This is neither the best nor the worst movie ever made. It is a visual eye-candy fest somewhat crippled by a ludicrous premise (moving cities on treads), a story that has so many Star Wars references it's just... well actually it was rather fun pointing out all the Star Wars references. But the hokey one-liners, marginal acting (except for Hugo Weaving, who rawks as usual), and so many jump the shark moments that by the end they were importing more sharks to jump.

If one were being super-critical, then of course we could wonder things such as "why use hydrogen instead of helium in an air city?" (Yeah, that would be a REALLY valid question). One would also wonder why there were no defenses AHEAD of the shield wall. We could slam the concept of how much energy and fuel it would take to run one of those gargantuan monster cities (and impossibility of doing so), or point out that the entire populace would have been smashed to little gooey puddles every time they hit a major pot hole. Yes, there were all kinds of flaws throughout the film.

That's if we were being super-critical. But anyone who has seen any Transformers movie and then rates this less than one of those atrocities would be most unfair. The special effects in this were rather incredible-- and I say that in a day when CGI has made special effects hum-drum. People who say they were "bored" at this must have some kind of major bio-chemical flaw, because there was little in this continual adrenaline romp that was boring. (Absurd, yes. Not boring.) Okay yeah, there was no nudity, no extreme blood and gore, no graphic sex, endless obscenities, etc etc. So I guess some jaded viewers might find it "boring".

For the average viewer however, the average ratings tell the tale. A lot of people liked it, some loved it, a lot of people hated it, some (like me) accepted the good parts, got a chuckle from the bad parts.

The real tell-tale is the box-office, which performed dismally. That's what happens when people listen to too many pompous critics rather than making their own decisions. (It's also what happens when the theaters charge so much for popcorn and drinks they make it far more economical to just wait for the DVD.)

Did I enjoy the movie? In an absurdist, over-the-top, jump-the-shark, amazing CGI kind of way, yeah. As a cerebral film that is one of the best movies of all time? Not even in the running. It's basically fast-food face-candy, like so many action-packed sci-fi movies these days.

Anyone who can sit through Batman vs Superman or the latest X-Men movies should be able to stomach this one. For those who rated this 1-star... seriously... you folks need to stop watching sci fi action movies and switch to another genre. Why continue to cause yourselves pain by attending movies you know ahead of time you're going to hate? I mean, get a clue.

This is a sci-fi action romp with somewhat astounding CGI-- and nothing more. It's a Star Wars wannabe that misses the mark. Worth watching? Probably. Going to take home anything special from it? Aside from an adrenaline high, probably not.

Visually Stunning, lacking everywhere else.

[krishkhatiwada · 6/10 · 6 December 2018]

The movie starts with a great sequence introducing us to the post apocalyptic-steampunk world, and how it works. But from their on the movie is predictable and rushed, with story lines that you have seen elsewhere and executed better elsewhere. It's predictablility wouldn't hurt if the story and most of its characters were compelling enough to allow the audience to be invested and care. As the third act of the movie began I quickly tried to rummage through the entire movie trying to justify watching the movie and I was left with only a few reasons. One of them was the world created.

Standout character: Shrike, solid arc and amazing design. (You have seen this character in the trailer).

Better than expected

[danielfnemes · 7/10 · 10 March 2019]

When I heard the name and concept of the movie (it's about big cities on wheels) I thought wtf, what a stupid idea and wasted talent and money on CGI. However I found the movie to be pretty entertaining. The good parts:

• as everyone else mentioned in their reviews: the visuals/CGI. Beautiful scenery and sets, vibrant colors, spectaculars battles, very good cinematography
• very dynamic. There is almost non stop action and anticipation. No bathroom time.
• strong performance of Hugo Weaving
• strong performance of Stephen Lang and CGI team for Shrike character

Now, if you think of the movie as a modern fairy tale for children and teenagers than it is more than ok. If you expect more... Well, here are the bad things:

• the concept itself lacks any logic. After a world war destroys the advanced stage of evolution the humanity have reached, the remaining humans build huge mobile islands on land that move on tracks or wheels or legs to scavenge... something. While others build a great city defended by a wall.
• as others have mentioned, the movie tries to fit a lot of things from the books in two hours and it fails. The characters have no depth, no complexity and there is no real emotional attachment to them
• too much resemblance to Mad Max
• there are no big names involved except for Hugo Weaving and of course Peter Jackson as a writer
• the plot is predictable, with holes and its main purpose is to justify the action and special effects. Annoying cliches both in characters, lines and story (the wise old Asian, the warrior girl, etc). Oh and yeah, SPOILER ALERT there is a genuine "I am your father" moment...

However the movie manages to entertain. It is a pity it was a box office flop. Probably because of the concept itself which is hard to sell, the lack of efficient marketing, the bad critic reviews and mostly the lack of big names that would draw interest. Not to mention the competition with other movies launched in the same period such as Aquaman.

Conclusion: you will not regret seeing the movie if you want to see a visually stunning modern fairy tale. But don't expect Lord of The Rings.

Far dystopian future, cities are on the move!

[TxMike · 22 April 2021]

I enjoyed this movie mostly for the novel concept. Something really upsetting has happened to the Earth, there is some mention of a 60-minute war, perhaps nuclear. Now, at least 1000 years into the future, or as one character says, 1700 years after the big destruction, cities large and small are on very, very large traction devices, they travel the landscape and gobble up smaller cities for the food and supplies. The featured city is London with its many levels, the lowest for grunt work and the highest for the elite.

So the hook here isn't unlike many other fantasy movies, there is always one powerful man who wants to be all-powerful. And there are one or two ordinary people who need to stop him. Here it is a female and a male, 30-ish young adults.

The movie is loaded with action, especially the last third or so. It is entertaining as a futuristic action flick, I suppose one could draw parables about the human condition and caring for each other. I watched it on BluRay from my public library, my wife skipped.

The disc has a number of very interesting extras showing how they built the sets and made certain parts of the movie.

Its like Howls moving castel, Fury roads and The hunger games combined

[mauritsjacobs · 6/10 · 5 December 2018]

First things first, I was lucky enough to be able to go to the pre-premier in Amsterdam and watched the movie in IMAX and I highly recomand watching it in this format.

Basicly what you are watching is a movie that almost seems to aim to be the next terrible tween trilogy. But... the story is not half bad. Filled with plotholes, obnoxious characters and refusing to explain just WHY THEY HAVE TO DRIVE THEIR CITIES!? but overall enjoyable.

The true attrection however is the scenery and boy is it worth it. The cities look amazing, the planes, buildings and everything in the film is dressed to impress. It made me want to crawl through the screen and just marvel at the beauty of it all.

So yeah! The movie is kinda like watching an anime like Howls moving castle without subtitles. I have no idee what they are trying to say but it sure looks nice.

Not bad, but awful if you've read the book.

[jasonwhite-19878 · 6/10 · 1 January 2019]

I loved the idea, cities eating each other, but it hardly happens, the idea is introduced and then forgotten. The concept was great but I think Peter Jackson has lost the ability to adapt books. Lord of the Rings worked because the kept to the story and adapted it for screen, the Hobbit didn't work because they extended it into a bloated monster for screen and Mortal Engines fails because they have changed the story so much to make a their movie version. I didn't mind it when I first saw it, it's an ok film with great ideas that it doesn't really capitalise on but then I read the book.....

The nuanced villain has become almost comic book, despite Hugo Weaving's best efforts and the changes to make the Star Wars like ending took the tragedy from the finale. Hester seems hollow and her affection for Tom seems forced. Tom doesn't get to be our unwitting hero, with all his bravery that breaks down Hester removed and the tragic end is turned into an explosive pyrotechnic fest. Even Shrike's story is broken for no good reason, just to make Valentine even more evil and Tom less heroic. What a shame.

So, if you've not read the book, give it a go - there are far worse films - if you have, beware.

Good sci-fi action

[simon-81093 · 7/10 · 13 December 2018]

Better than I was expecting. Most sci-fi fans should like this. Lots of reviewers seem to look too deep and over-analyse. Just sit back and enjoy the ride!

Have some potential but boring & predictable.

[raudafitriani · 6/10 · 7 December 2018]

I've seen a lot movies like this, so I think this movie is not for me - it's for the newcomers. Great visuals, CGI looks good also the cinematography but the story has some flaws and the characters are flat and annoying. Useless sub plots, I don't think it's necessary and lame.

Zero empathy for characters, wasted talent of Hugo Weaving - the only reason why I want to watch this movie. Although the first scene of the movie looks promising.

Another thing that I hate about this movie, there's some line in this movie like "I don't want to tell you." then they looking at each other, and then "5 years ago..." and I'm like.. w-what.. the hell...

The only soul in this movie, comes from the soulless monster Shrike

[CountJonnie · 4/10 · 8 February 2019]

Thankfully, the reviews helped us getting into this movie with the right expectation. The movie is empty, hollow, predictable, rushed. The effects are slightly entertaining but fail to keep your interest for longer than 10-20 minutes.

The only light in this movie, is brought to you by Stephen Lang's portrayal of the soulless and heartless monster Shrike. With a short amount of screen time, text and action, he is the only character that makes this movie slightly interesting. After that, the movie hits a wall. ;)

While visually entertaining, missing purpose

[teovirtanen · 6/10 · 25 August 2020]

Movie has nice new idea, acting is good and movie is visually entertaining. What this film is missing is purpose. I do not get the idea of these cities or why they need to attack others. There is not really reason for all this violence. What are they trying to acheive? What is the end result that they need?

At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we've all been waiting for.

[bob-the-movie-man · 5/10 · 23 December 2018]

As comedy goes it's classic gold! London has been transferred, presumably via a futuristic huge forklift truck of some kind, onto a huge chassis and is now chugging its way across mainland Europe. Needing fuel, it has the capability to gobble-up (take that Barnier!) other towns and cities (also roaming the countryside) which London 'digests' (smoke that Tusk!). Curiously, the captured cities' inhabitants are not exterminated but integrated into the City's population: so much for any anti-immigration policy! (LOL).

But all doesn't go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares "We should never have gone into Europe. It's the biggest mistake we ever made". (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)

Stuffing it squarely to the 'remainers', London makes its own future. "It's time to show the world how strong London can be". Having conquered most of Europe, it's time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace"!

OK, so in the interests of 'advertising standards', I'd better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For "Mortal Engines" is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it's hilarious!

In terms of plot, this (like "Waterworld") makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war - though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! - and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are 'static' and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: "Municipal Darwinism" as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world's demise in the first place.

But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we've seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.

Anna Fang declares "I'm not subtle" and neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I'm not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous - a lot of money has been thrown at this - and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!

Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It's jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.

As for 'the turns', the only real "name" in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.

Story-wise, there's not a sci-fi film that's not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can't comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python's "Crimson Permanent Assurance Company"; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of "The Great Wall" and Morannon from "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"; a less sophisticated aerial location from "The Empire Strikes Back"; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).

Now I'm loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable "They Shall Not Grown Old". And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a "life flashing before your eyes scene" that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it's a bit of a mess. It's a long way from being the worse film I've seen this year by a long stroke - it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it's initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.

(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).

The plot is quite predictable , but still a lot of fun

[winnermd57 · 8/10 · 5 December 2018]

The effects of the movie are quite excellent. The atmosphere and the place took for film was quite spectacular and amazing. The movie continues the plot quite quick , not much conversation break during the show with a lot of action. Some plot of the movie are not too reasonable but still acceptable. For me, this is one of the worth watching movie in 2018.

Highly Entertaining Post-Apocalyptic Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 20 February 2019]

In the future, after the Sixty Minute War, the survivors build mobile fortresses and big cities become predator cities attacking small villages or settlements to take their population, supplies, technology and resources. When London takes a small mining village, a masked young woman called Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar) tries to kill their leader Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) but the young trainee Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) saves Valentine and chases Hester. She tells to Tom that Valentine killed her mother and escapes through a dumping hole. When Tom reports to Valentine what Hester said, he pushes Tom that falls in the hole off the city. Tom and Hester meets each other and they are forced to team-up to survive and she tells the story of her mother Pandora and Valentine, who killed her. They are rescued by a strange couple and soon they learn that their intention is to sell them as slaves. But they are saved by the warrior Anna Fang (Jihae) and they learn secrets about Pandora´s discover. Soon they find that they need to stop Valentine to save the civilization in Asia led by Shan Guo and protected by the shield wall.

"Mortal Engines" is a highly entertaining post-apocalyptic adventure produced by Peter Jackson. The story and the screenplay are great, with attractive characters and a good villain. The lead couple shows chemistry and there are many unknown actors and actresses. The CGI is excellent in the Terry Gilliam´s "Brazil" style. Highly recommended for fans of the genre. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Máquinas Mortais" ("Mortal Engines")

Great CGI and that's about it

[helenamfsoares · 5/10 · 6 December 2018]

Like many reviews said, you can easily spot other films' plots in this one. Predictable, basic and 0 empathy for characters. Save yourself some money and watch it at home when available.

The story itself has some flaws, but overall enjoyable film

[Mr_mcspicy032 · 6/10 · 5 December 2018]

Pros: -Gorgeous Visuals -Steam punk vibe -Cinematography -Third act battle sequence

Cons: -Villain/Antagonist motivation is weak and also its backstory -Supporting characters are flat -Unnecessary sub plots

Score: -2.5/5 Chili Peppers

Verdict:

• The story itself has some flaws, it has a weak world building. It's antagonist has weak qualities of a good villain where you could hate him in the entire film. The movie also suffers from the lack of good backstory for the supporting characters and some of its protagonist motivation. Some subplots are not needed in the film , it just make the film longer and dragging.

Boy is this a mixed bag!

[Finfrosk86 · 6/10 · 5 December 2018]

So way in the future, people live in big mechanical machines on wheels. And one of the bigger cities: London, has got some rather unsavory plans.

Mortal Engines looks pretty good. The house-machines look awesome, especially the big ones. We are treated to some fine shots. Grandiose stuff. That's cool. The action is alright, nothing too special, but at times it's quite exciting. There is one fight scene though and I gotta say: someone did NOT get the memo that we don't use a million cuts any more. But there isn't that much fighting anyway, so it's not a big problem. The action that's on a bigger scale is much better. The effects look good, except from some greenscreen stuff that will not age well. (remember that one scene in King Kong? Jeeesh)

This movie really is a mixed bag. On one side it's got some creative, original ideas, on the other some overused clishees. For every creative element, there's a cringy line or two.

The characters are okay, can't say I liked anyone to a very big extent..Although Hugo Weaving does have some charisma. What's with that Tom guy? Sorry, but I just didn't like his face. Reminded me of a ventriloquist dummy, or something. Dunno.

Mortal Engines does have a cool atmosphere about it that I liked. But it is a little long, and there is especially one plot element that fell totally flat, although it was supposed to be very moving. It wasn't.

All in all a decent movie, sure to entertain at least some people.

Pretentious piece of garbage

[nickel_son · 19 May 2019]

If it was a B movie, would be 2 or even 3 out of 10 I guess. But no, this piece of absolute garbage, full of cliches and cringy dialogues, demands to be taken seriously.. Funny..

It is like a Frankenstein's monster, built up ugly with the most overused, most unintelligent shreds of plots, worlds and characters from other steampunk/sci-fi works.

They didn't even forgot to implement nowadays' "politically correct" trends here: Bad europeans / good asians, toxic white males and strong, morally right diverse females to please SJW audience. Yay!

Didn't help though.

What a pity to see Peter Jackson's degradation from LotR and District 9 to Hobbit and this one.

Not a big surprise it's financial failing and mostly negative feedback from audience and critics.

IMDb ratings

[skiewalker · 6/10 · 5 December 2018]

Honestly, I watched this movie without knowing anything about it. I don't even know that the movie was based on a best-selling novel, and therefore, I cannot compare the movie with the novel itself. However, my expectations to this movie was unexpectedly high, thanks to the trailer. And it did fulfill my expectations. The plot was interesting indeed, but I kinda disappointed about the disappearance of a character at the end of the movie. Like at one moment, he's there, but at the end of the movie, he wasn't even mentioned! It was like he was never there at all.

Disappointing. Looks good, but who cares?

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 23 September 2021]

After apocalyptic war, the wastelands are inhabited by wheeled cities which roam around, eking a living. London is the biggest, and most predatory. Thaddeus Valentine is minded to create a vicious weapon in order to destroy a wall which prevents the cities from venturing into fresh territory. And young Hester Shaw is minded to kill Thaddeus Valentine.

December 2018 saw a rush of movies aimed at the geek market. A great trailer sold this one to my inner geek - predatory cities on wheels! Wow! This should be great!

It isn't. Every time I think about it, I find more wrong with it. Let's start with the basic idea. The sci-fi nut in me loves the idea, until even a little bit of thought tells me that the notion of cities on caterpillar tracks is hugely impractical. Where does the fuel come from?

The story - essentially the battle for Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back - is OK. Hugo Weaving as Valentine, and Stephen Lang as reanimated corpse/robot Shrike, are both fine. But the juvenile leads have little charisma, and it's difficult to care about them.

This isn't helped by the script. The Lord Of The Rings trio of Jackson/Boyens/Walsh have turned out a script which pays lip service to Hester's backstory, but the other characters? So what?

The visuals of the cities are good, albeit the early high speed chase - well executed - was unconvincing. I simply didn't believe that wheeled cities could travel at those speeds, with such good cornering.

And it is dark, not to mention drab. The colour scheme is almost entirely variations on brown, with the exception of one red aircraft.

There are a number of points where time is critical, yet people stand around for no particular reason, In one instance, they are on a burning deflating balloon city. You might think that might make them act with a little urgency, but no.

This could have been a film I loved - I wanted it to be, I expected it to be. But no. It was, instead, hugely annoying and frustrating.

A dull and lifeless ride

[eddie_baggins · 4/10 · 10 December 2018]

In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from Mortal Engines.

A film that feels like it's come out too late in the dystopian piece, this Peter Jackson produced blockbuster has had a tough time convincing audiences that they should spend their hard earned dollars on catching it while it plays in cinemas but despite my low expectations and willingness to be pleasantly surprised, Engines left me cold, empty and rather disappointed in that it failed so miserably in giving its world a chance to succeed.

So many elements of debut director Christian Rivers cinematic tale feel underutilised, under-cooked and under-developed, as we are quickly introduced to a future world landscape where humans have decided to build moving cities and roam the planet searching for resources, after a cataclysmic event wiped out a large portion of Earth's population and civilisations.

Before you have much of chance to blink, we're introduced to a moving London, Hugo Weaving's scheming Thaddeus Valentine, Robert Sheehan's kind-hearted history buff Tom Natsworthy and Hera Hilmar's main protagonist Hester Shaw, who seeks vengeance against Valentine for past wrongs but in around all these introductions and numerous by the numbers action scenes, there's carefully little time spent on making any of it matter, disallowing us an audience to ever feel even slightly invested in what occurrences take place.

Its all seriously frustrating, as this steampunk world seems like one that's open for exploration and the film often looks visually stunning thanks to the VFX work and set design, but it's a cold and far to basically developed universe to feel lived in and alive.

Rivers struggles to explain why humanity decided its best option was to develop a collection of moving cities, there's almost no talk of what happened before these cities took shape and who on earth are the ancient ones and why does a Terminator named Shrike decide to adopt a human child?

These are just some of the questions and thoughts that for some reason the team behind Engines decided not to answer and you can't help but escape the feeling that a first time director wasn't the storyteller required to bring Philip Reeve's novel to the big screen, with trite dialogue, awkward pacing and bad performances a staple of this film that could've been.

You can sense the actors struggling with the material and while the only recognisable faces in the piece in the forms of Weaving and a motion captured Stephan Lang try their best gruff guy takes, relative newcomers Hilmar and Sheehan fail to inspire, while Asian megastar Jihae comes in too late in the piece to add any real spark to the piece as her rebellious pilot Anna Fang.

Final Say -

At its best a half-baked attempt to create a unique new movie universe, that's only saving graces are some neat visual flourishes, Mortal Engines is close to an entirely charmless and lifeless exercise in big budget filmmaking that appears destined to be one of the growing number of high profile failures of 2018.

2 Minions out of 5

Only for visuals.

[wwwranga · 6/10 · 6 December 2018]

When saw the trailer i expected a lot from it,after watching a movie it gave a big disappointment.Story telling was too worst and even one single character wasn't good enough.there is nothing good in this movie except visuals. So,wait for bluray print and watch it at home.

Interesting premise, bad characters

[Vartiainen · 4/10 · 19 August 2020]

Mortal Engines is based on a novel by Philip Reeve and adapted into a movie by Christian Rivers as the director and Peter Jackson as one of the producers. It's a story of a post-apocalyptic steampunk world where Europe has become a barren wasteland, ravaged and foraged by enormous mobile city machines. Strong eats weak, Darwinism is all but a religion and anything from the old world is hailed as a divine relic.

Pretty basic stuff, although the idea of a city having been remade into a mobile hunting platform is a fun one. And the does get some traction based on that idea. All the best CGI money shots are of those cities in motion.

Unfortunately the rest of the film is nothing but one bland cliché after another. We have the status quo of the wealthy elite ruling over the poor. We have the rebellion fighting against the elite. We have the plucky youngster getting pulled into the rebellion after having his eyes opened to the cruelties of his elite peers. We have the too cool for school rebel leader with a tragic backstory. Actually, we have more than one of those. We have the good rival nation, the greener side of the fence, where everything is more civilized and better.

And all those clichés are not insurmountable obstacles. Some of the best stories in the world are based on those exact clichés. It's the execution that's the key. Which unfortunately doesn't work here. The most egregious problem is the character writing. None of them are interesting. The least of all Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar). You know, the woman on the poster. The supposed main character. I honestly cannot name a single defining characteristic about her beyond the obvious clichés of her being tragic, emo and scarred.

That being said, I did enjoy both Robert Sheehan as the plucky science lad getting pulled into the madness and Hugo Weaving as Thaddeus Valentine, the main antagonist. They were the only two actors I felt were giving it their all.

Mortal Engines is a pretty film. It has eye candy galore. It simply isn't told well enough to rise above expectations.

Why all the hate for this movie?

[samanthalouisecooper · 10/10 · 18 December 2018]

Ok so I wouldn't actually give this a 10 but I think some people are being a bit harsh so trying to balance that out.. I think maybe a 7.5/8 would be fair.

I really enjoyed this movie.. I thought it was unique (although I admit I haven't seen some of the other movies it is being compared to).. yes it has the usual predictable story of the underdog rising up and good winning over evil.. but what action/adventure movie doesn't have that??

I thought the visuals were absolutely beautiful.. like stunning.. as an arty person this ticked a big box for me..

The story itself was interesting and kept me engaged.. I didn't find it totally predictable..

It's action packed from beginning to end..

I found a couple of bits a little cheesy and the acting in parts wasn't amazing.. but overall I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and would def recommend it.. prob a better watch at the cinema because of the visuals which are always nicer on a big screen.

Exactly what you would expect

[dr_lager · 7/10 · 10 January 2019]

I was quite satisfied with this movie. I do wish I had seen it with my 12 year old son because I'm fairly sure he'd have enjoyed it too. Why? Because the whole story, plotline, characterization, basic concepts, love interest, action, bad guy - the whole shebang - is so clearly directed at "young adults" that anyone of my ancient age trying to judge it on the basis of those elements is going to be asking too much of it. But kids, and anyone who likes dystopian science fantasy action films will do too. And there's a good amount of humor in it too.

This was a hugely enjoyable piece of nonsense. I mean, the whole city of London on treadmills, eating up little German villages? With a hunt for a massive weapon of mass destruction? And imitation Twinkie bars that have lasted a thousand years?

Non-stop action, check. Tolerable dialogue, check. No uncomfortable love scenes that will make teens and preteens embarrassed, check. Obviously bad, bad guy, check. Great CGI, check. Did I mention the pretty much non-stop action?

The characters are pretty two dimensional, but sympathetic enough. The concept is fun to watch - steampunk does Star Wars. As dystopian visions of the world it goes pretty well, and I don't mind seeing my home town as the collective bad guys. I mean, come on, when isn't the bad guy from Britain?

It's not Blade Runner, but it's not Valerian either. I'll watch it again, but next time with my son.

Just horrendous

[takaladdie-net · 1/10 · 22 April 2019]

Acting is not bad, but the storyline is simple, tedious in fact. I have not read the book, but I hope it is a lot better than this car wreck of a movie.

Anti-Western propaganda permeates throughout this movie - however if you like revisionist history (yes, I am aware that this story is set 1000 years in the future but the post *yawn* apocalyptic future) then please check out this steampunk Star Wars attempt - just it has no soul, likeable/relatable characters or charm to it. Just a bunch of special effects - which were actually very good I must admit - and a hipster view of the world. So all in all rather pretentious and lacking in irony or depth.