Mortal Engines (2018) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,028 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Visually Stunning, lacking everywhere else.
krishkhatiwada6 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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).
498 out of 628 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than expected
danielfnemes10 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.
114 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we've all been waiting for.
bob-the-movie-man23 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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).
437 out of 633 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Its like Howls moving castel, Fury roads and The hunger games combined
mauritsjacobs5 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.
218 out of 309 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great CGI and that's about it
helenamfsoares6 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.
211 out of 303 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Stunning Animation Effects
ymyuseda12 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Rating 6.5/10 The only good thing about this novie were the visual and when the moster who keeps ' Hester Shaw ' from child forgives her and free from the promise she has made. The first 10 To 15 minutes in this movie is boring. For me, this movie not to bad, just average.
145 out of 207 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not bad, but awful if you've read the book.
jasonwhite-198781 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.
93 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The plot is quite predictable , but still a lot of fun
winnermd575 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.
214 out of 322 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A dull and lifeless ride
eddie_baggins10 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
206 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Have some potential but boring & predictable.
raudafitriani7 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...
232 out of 361 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
kees-kleijmeer6 December 2018
I had high hopes for this movie, I really wanted to like it, I absolutely love the fantasy setting, CGI looks great. I didn't know the movie was based on a book series, but early on in the movie I thought to my self, this movie feels like it is based on a book story of which they are leaving a lot of important stuff out. And what do you know... I'm not even going to go I'm detail about everything I didn't like, it just felt lazy written and filled with dumb clichés.
220 out of 343 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good sci-fi action
simonpetri-8109313 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!
169 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Big names on the car, amateurs behind the wheels
Field7813 December 2018
December is often the month to look out for one of Peter Jackson's fantasy spectacles since he and his writing partners Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh revived the genre 17 years ago with The Fellowship of the Ring. He has since treated us to two superior sequels, a pretty solid King Kong remake, and an underestimated Hobbit trilogy. A year ago we already saw teaser trailers for Mortal Engines, which did what teasers should do: they make us hungry. And of course, it had Jackson's name proudly displayed all over it. But don't let that fool you, because he didn't direct this one.

That is no problem in itself, because Jackson on the producer's seat gave us the masterful District 9 (another underrated gem worth watching) and The Adventures of Tintin (technically a Spielberg movie, but still). However, in this case, his script contribution and Christian Rivers on the director's chair are by far the biggest problems of the movie.

A world where huge cities are turned into moving vehicles sounds like something that could be very cinematic, and indeed, it looks great on screen. Especially the parts where a huge predator city swallows and recycles a smaller one is exactly the kind of imagery that the makers must have envisioned. There are more beautiful locations in the film, like a city in the air, some good ideas and action scenes, and the film sells these things well enough for me not to question the logic of it. But this is as far as good worldbuilding goes, because the (back)story and characters are used in a most uninspired fashion.

A good director knows how to balance exposition with advancing the narrative, but Rivers clearly lacks such talent. The first 15 minutes are a barrage of expository conversations with clearly no other purpose than bringing the audience up to speed. Afterwards, the characters remain nothing more than one-dimensional archetypes throughout the movie (the silent heroin, the young hero with an unfulfilled talent, the hammy villain with world-domination ideas, the brown-nosing creep), and some even disappear from the film without any narrative consequence, which says something about the quality of the script (more about that later).

A cast full of fresh faces is usually a good thing compared to miscast band of A-listers, but most of the bit players get too little screentime or act too badly to make a good impression. A band of racially diverse heroes is introduced very late in the story, which is a mistake because the movie doesn't emotionally invest in them, so we couldn't care less about their fate. Not that the actor's direction is of any help, by the way. Hera Hilmar is downright boring and unbelievable as the tough protagonist, and Hugo Weaving does a uninspired bad guy act that fails to generate any sympathy. Robert Sheehan as Tom seems to be the only one having some fun with his role.

There is not much joy to get from the storytelling part either, as the by-the-numbers plot clearly took a backseat to the visuals here. Most dystopian sci-fi movies make grateful use of their universe's mythology, and the beginning is promising. But the backstory is quickly used as an excuse to have the villains search for a very powerful item, with the heroes drawn in to stop them through way too many badly written coincidences. If this sounds like a cheap version of The One Ring, you're not wrong.

To spice up the heroine's motivations, they invented a dead-end subplot featuring some sort of green Terminator, but like lots of other things in this movie, this is just a nice idea, badly developed, and thrown in without proper motivation or catharsis. The film takes itself much too seriously with hardly any moderating humor, and the cheesiness towards the end becomes so bad that the 'shocking revelation' (a clear rip-off from another fantasy series) amounts to absolutely nothing.

How a big studio allowed this film to be helmed by a storyboard artist with only two short film segments under his belt is anyone's guess. I assume Rivers was accomplished enough as an artist to sway them with his intended look for the film (which is absolutely the most positive part of the film). Jackson probably vouched for him, and got poor Hugo Weaving involved to secure the budget. Jackson shouldn't be blamed completely for giving promising talent a chance, but he, Boyens and Walsh should seriously contemplate their contributions to the screenplay. Three Oscar-winning writers who managed to get the unfilmable Lord of the Rings novels to the screen should be able to do substantially better than this.

I know we have been spoiled by series like Game Of Thrones where there is ample time to set up story, subplots and characters, something that is always challenging in a 2-hr movie. But when you want to start a new fantasy franchise, at least put a certified cook in the kitchen who knows how to balance the ingredients, and prevent it from becoming the next Golden Compass.
88 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The only soul in this movie, comes from the soulless monster Shrike
CountJonnie8 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. ;)
45 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty but stupid
thomasgabs6 December 2018
Absolutely gorgeous imagery but there is no coherence to the plot, the whole world the movie is set in is built very weakly from a storytelling perspective and the characters are annoying. This just feel like a joyless cash-grab attempt at starting up a lazy preteen cinematic universe with WAAAY overused cinematic tropes.

I do not recommend, save your money for a new pair of headphones or whatever it is you kids are into because that's who this movie is for.
191 out of 315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The story itself has some flaws, but overall enjoyable film
Mr_mcspicy0325 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

  • 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.
136 out of 222 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Human instruments, fatal mechanisms
Quebec_Dragon13 December 2018
I already know it's gonna get bashed for seemingly ripping off elements of Star Wars, but I think It's kind of an unfair criticism and I loved the film. Let's get that part over first: there are at least two main elements that might make you think Star Wars near the end. They're somewhat similar but not really the same and play out differently in a very different setting with different components.

So I thought the high concept of the movie - motorized cities rolling on land - might seem ridiculous, but I gotta admit it worked for me and made the movie feel fresh. That starting chase sequence between the two towns was original and memorable. There were other spectacular action sequences, including one involving buzzsaws, with great special effects, but I gotta admit the melee fights were weak as they were of the chaotic, frantic-cut variety, except perhaps those involving Shrike that were better. Regarding that undead cyborg Shrike, I loved pretty much everything about him: his look, the way he moved, his back story and his story arc. Probably my favorite character, but the others were interesting too, and the acting was solid overall.

The production design was excellent with several fascinating cities and/or vehicles with a certain steampunk design vibe. Special mention to the location where the giant London tank threads passed. Visual effects were outstanding with sights you might never have seen before. Music was very good and appropriately grand when called for. I liked the story despite feeling a slight déjà-vu in the last part. This future world creation based on the novels was very well portrayed and captivating to me, and I wanted to learn more about it. Overall, the film was a very nice surprise, quite different than the usual sci-fi/fantasy blockbuster, at least in its setting. To be honest, until the last act I was going to recommend this film without any real reserves, but then it felt as if had to explain certain things.

Rating: 8.5 out of 10 (Remarkable)
168 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Patchwork of Other Movies
iamjacksmoviechannel11 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
So Mortal Engines shows just how great it is that we live in a world where an adaptation of a YA novel comes every couple months.

Mortal Engines is...a film. Many films actually. Something of a patchwork of films- Mad Max, Star Wars, Waterworld, Howl's Moving Castle. That's just the surface.

Here cities have had to load themselves up on tank tracks and roam around an apocalyptic wasteland looking for fuel and food.

These gigantic monstrosities adorned with buildings, gardens, roads, and exhaust pipes never feel lived in so much as they're just eyesores.

Hugo Weaving is some big higher-up of the city of London, which is just crushing it in the whole devouring other cities thing, and he's just getting started.

Hera Hilmar plays Hester, a mopey survivalist seeking revenge on Weaving for killing her mom and scarring up her face, though not as badly as in the book cause you know, you gotta sell the teen lover angle.

Robert Sheehan is Tom, the other teen, he looks like a complete puss next to Hester and requires saving constantly.

These two encounter quirky, murderous, and freedom-fighting characters, none of which funny or memorable, as they make their way back to the final showdown with Weaving.

Of course they fall in love along the way but the movie is so fast-paced and scattered you'd hardly ever recognize they even have chemistry.

More problematic than how derivative and frankly joyless this all is is that the only real emotional beats take place in flashbacks I would have rather seen fleshed out than watch the actual movie.

The best that could be said for this is that Peter Jackson actually didn't direct it, as the marketing seems to be misleading people to think.

That dishonor goes to Christian Rivers, Jackson's storyboard artist, although it's hard to tell what drew either to this. It's a movie where even the special effects seem to be saying "we could do alot better."

If you like this, check out Craig James Review on Youtube for more
108 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you like the trailer, you will like the movie
arabnikita5 December 2018
Yesterday I got a chance to see the advanced premier screening and was pleasantly satisfied with this movie, considering that I did not even know of its existence before seeing the trailer.

The plot is very solid where we get an introduction of what the Mortal Engines and these moving cities are all about, then we get an understanding who the main heroes/villains are followed by some plot development and a grand finale with the possibility of ending the series here and now or continuing following the books.

Overall a good movie with great cinematography, interesting plot with potential for the future. There is nothing jaw-dropping or over the top action or deep meaning behind actions. See the trailer to know if this is your kind of movie. If you enjoy the trailer, you will enjoy the movie... as simple as that.
164 out of 289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boy is this a mixed bag!
Finfrosk865 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.
106 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Highly Entertaining Post-Apocalyptic Adventure
claudio_carvalho20 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")
42 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
joanedoterceiro7 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
First 15/20 minutes are somewhat good but then it's eye roll worthy and boring until the end.

First, they changed the book story;

Second they give you so much info that the plot is absolutly obvious within the first hour ( I didn't read the books, my boyfriend told me after all the damage they did to the original plot) , and then the rest of the movie you're just waiting for it to happen. No plot twists.

All the dialogues are cringeworthy, full of cliches and shallow motivational quotes, we never get a hint of anybodys past except the protagonist and that creates a gap of empaty. I wanted to care for the characters but I could feel they were not real.

I wanted to leave the cinema within thre first hour because it was so bad. I couldn't take it anymore.
142 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I enjoyed it
mr_thewizard15 December 2018
Clearly its one of the best movies to come out this year, the story and the idea are quite new, don't think there is anything that came out had the same idea. Acting was a bit low in my opinion thats why it didnt get that high of rating I think. Graphics and sound effects are worth watching it in iMax not in normal cinema as you will be missing a lot.
69 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good for a Sunday afternoon
mcintoro-573593 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I actually enjoyed this movie. The idea was good a d the effects were better than I would have thought. A similar theme to star wars if you think of the lo Don as the death star..... All in all a good show.
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Surprisingly a fun ride
ariqsulung5 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I honestly watched the movie without expecting anything, half expecting the movie to be just another poor attempt to adapt a best selling novel... but boy!! I've never been so glad to be wrong...
85 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed