Let's talk about: Mortal Engines (2018)

It's a steampunky movie released just too late, with an odd trailer style.

Not doing well critically, and is the Titanic if the box office was an iceberg.

But I loved it!!!

My wife and I saw it on Christmas (a "best of the worst" choice, seeing as we'd already seen Into the Spider-Verse and Fantastic Beasts). We didn't want to see Aqua Man or Bumblebee. She literally zones out during action scenes and AngryJoeShow told me the former is 99% action and the latter somehow didn't even get its own formula right. I kinda wanted to see Welcome to Marwin, but I read some bad reviews and it doesn't seem cheerful. Her movie, Mary Queen of Scots, just doesn't exist at any theater in our area (Cincinnati/Newport) which is a bummer. I told her we'd Vudu that one...

Anyways...Mortal Engines got to play in the game as a result.

Some people say the emotional resonance just isn't there, the plot doesn't make sense, but 1) I went into it with zero expectations and 2) it was a fun movie. I liked the automaton/terminator character and the movie checked all the marks. It felt like a weird mix of Valerian/Star Wars meets Steampunk.

Maybe it's because I don't take movies as seriously anymore. Nothing shocked me, pretty predictable stuff, but kind of classic/tropey in a good way? The two leads I thought did a good job, much better than DeHaan/Delevingne in Valerian and I felt that the fact of this movie having no big names except for Weaving in it (probably a dumb move, box office wise) worked for it. The camerawork was nice, nothing really fancy but a little bit of flair, figures since it was done by some dude in the New Zealand Cinematographers Society. The special effects were abundant, with some looking better than others which is the norm, so it was a nice movie to look at and that always scores big points for me.

The pathos, the ending, the romance (normally I hate romances in movies, but this felt like a natural one in a world that doesn't really seem to invite romance). I'm kinda intrigued to read the books now.

Most importantly? I'm buying this freaking movie. I honestly can't wait to watch it again. It was just so neat. It's rare for a movie to strike me that way, a movie that has moments that I know are coming but that I would look forward to. Not saying this movie is sci-fi, but after seeing all these trailers in these new trips we've made to the theater recently, it seems to be a renaissance of sorts which is very cool to a moviegoer like me. I loved all the modern day references in this movie and the world building. Twinkies, Minions, the eBay auction where the lady goes "I'll just Buy It Now," good stuff...

☆☆☆ for me.

A shame that Bumblebee and Aqua Man have no problem making money. AngryJoeShow pointed out the lack of butts in the seats at his showing, and there were only three other people other than my wife and me. No bueno. Wrong release date, for sure, marketing, and hey, not saying this is a masterpiece...I'd say it's even better than John Carter (buzzword comparison).

TL/DR - Mortal Engines. Ya loved it? Ya hated it? I want to know, guys!

__________________
"They knew and they let it happen! To kids!"-Spotlight
https://tinyurl.com/ruffalospotlight

In short, I liked it. A solid kind of movie, structurally generic up to a fault, especially when



but still fairly decent as far as these YA dystopia blockbusters tend to go.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I was going to try and catch it after opening weekend, but most showings at my theater stopped after it failed so hard haha Thanks for the review to show it's at least worth a Redbox rent

When I saw the trailers for this, I thought it looked like an interesting concept, but I had a feeling it would fail.


And it did. Only made half a million on the Thursday late night showing... 2 million on opening day... and in a 4 week run in cinemas only made 13 million in the US.
Total gross across all territories was $40m and a rating of 27% on RT.


The movie cost $150m to make, plus advertising... numbers reckon they've lost about $150m altogether.


A lot of reviews I've seen say that it's overly dependent on CGI and not enough in the writing stakes.
Personally I think Peter Jackson really needs to go back to making movies with practical effects.

__________________

I’m interested to see it and will as soon as it’s available digitally. Apparently Jackson only had say 20% hand in direction according to empire magazine. But 150 mil loss is devastating.

Other than the empire mag sprooking it I haven’t heard or seen anything to do with this movie where I live.

Although he didn’t fully direct Peter Jackson leaves me scratching my head. He made 3 bonafide masterpieces and has really rested or sunk on his laurels. Maybe that was the peak for him, his Mount Everest and he has no passion left. The Hobbit movies, especially the last one were awful. I hope he can rekindle his flame as he is more than capable.

Anyway I digressed...I am looking forwTd to this, mainly because of Jackson’s influence.

Isn't the problem more that Jackson's had to juggle all these projects for one reason or another? As I recall, he was meant to direct Mortal Engines himself until Del Toro dropped out of doing The Hobbit, which meant that Jackson had to take over doing The Hobbit and had to do it fast to meet deadlines (hence why it seems less passionate or whatever compared to LOTR). This would also explain why he handed over Mortal Engines directing duties to Christian Rivers, though I was under the impression that this was a deliberate choice on his part to be involved in a supervisory role (or helping out on second-unit work). That's without mentioning the various other projects he has lined up like a Tintin sequel or a Dam Busters remake.

What reasons? Financial I bet, which is more than understandable although fairly disappointing when he’s set the bar so high with the Lotr trilogy and was really a director to take note of. Passion wasn’t in it but the pay check was. King Kong was also a strange film. Good to almost great in certain parts then the dinasaur stampede, etc.

If he’s got these passions projects brewing you’d hope he can still get the green light as this 150 mil loss won’t do him any favours given his names attached. Hoping for more from him.

Yeah, I think the article in question said something like that (it was my understanding that The Hobbit was more about helping New Line Cinema get out of the red with a sure-fire series of hits, hence why they stretched it out to three movies instead of two). At this rate, it looks like he's going to have to deliver more financially viable sequel/remake kind of stuff before getting more chances to do more original/risky stuff like Mortal Engines.

If he wants to do it, if he has the energy and will I’d happily watch his films. Fingers crossed there’s more to come, of a high standard and he hasn’t reached that peak.

LOTR was in development for a decade before they even started filming... King Kong had been in the running for about 15 years before he even fired up a camera as well.
The Frighteners took 4 years.
The story of Heavenly Creatures had caught Jackson's attention since he was a child.


Sadly, the majority of the movie studios in the business don't like it when directors/producers/writers take 15 years to make a movie.
They prefer to fire cash into a project and have their crew make a movie in the space of 3 days.


Jackson's the kind of guy who needs to have little to no budget for the task at hand, and has to be given a long time to work.
If he's given a huge budget and he's rushed, it seems he gets flustered and makes bad to mediocre movies.
Kinda like Robert Rodriguez tbh. Give him a huge budget and a deadline, and he melts.

Seems to be the case. Leaves fan wanting and waiting.