1,228 reviews
Helpful•534128
- krishkhatiwada
- Dec 6, 2018
- Permalink
Helpful•17044
- danielfnemes
- Mar 10, 2019
- Permalink
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.
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.
Helpful•274
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.
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.
Helpful•192
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.
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.
Helpful•25595
- mauritsjacobs
- Dec 5, 2018
- Permalink
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.
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.
Helpful•13548
- jasonwhite-19878
- Jan 1, 2019
- Permalink
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!
Helpful•219107
- simon-81093
- Dec 13, 2018
- Permalink
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. ;)
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. ;)
Helpful•15457
- CountJonnie
- Feb 8, 2019
- Permalink
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...
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...
Helpful•236136
- raudafitriani
- Dec 7, 2018
- Permalink
- bob-the-movie-man
- Dec 23, 2018
- Permalink
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.
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.
Helpful•214
- samanthalouisecooper
- Dec 18, 2018
- Permalink
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")
"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")
Helpful•7136
- claudio_carvalho
- Feb 20, 2019
- Permalink
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.
Helpful•23194
- helenamfsoares
- Dec 6, 2018
- Permalink
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?
Helpful•5627
- teovirtanen
- Aug 25, 2020
- Permalink
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:
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.
Helpful•14084
- Mr_mcspicy032
- Dec 5, 2018
- Permalink
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.
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.
Helpful•12279
- Finfrosk86
- Dec 5, 2018
- Permalink
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.
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.
Helpful•2713
- nickel_son
- May 19, 2019
- Permalink
Helpful•135
- skiewalker
- Dec 5, 2018
- Permalink
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
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
Helpful•223118
- eddie_baggins
- Dec 10, 2018
- Permalink
Helpful•135
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.
Helpful•205117
- kees-kleijmeer
- Dec 6, 2018
- Permalink
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.
Helpful•22395
- winnermd57
- Dec 5, 2018
- Permalink
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.
Helpful•9285
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.
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.
Helpful•11058
Helpful•51