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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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. ;)

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 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.

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")

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.