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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.