Mortal Engines is a film about cities that walk across the apocalypse, and it spends nearly two hours proving that walking cities are a terrible idea. Based on the novel by Philip Reeve, the movie wants to be a sweeping dystopian adventure, but it settles for a hollow shell of a story wrapped around expensive spectacle. The result is a film that looks impressive and feels empty.
Trailer, via Universal Pictures.
Cities That Walk
The central conceit is simple: cities have grown legs and wheels and now roam the post-apocalyptic world, hunting smaller settlements for resources. Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) lives in London, a massive city that picks off lesser towns. He is about to be exiled when he meets Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), a fierce outlaw who changes everything.
The concept is visually striking, and the filmmakers clearly had fun building the cityscapes. London is a towering, intricate beast of a machine, and the shots of it lumbering across the landscape are genuinely awe-inspiring. But the idea is never explained beyond the surface. Why do cities walk? What does it mean for society? The film never answers.
A Plot Without Weight
The story follows Tom as he flees London with Hester, pursued by the ruthless Thaddeus Valentine (Hugh Grant). Along the way, he discovers that his family holds a secret that could change the entire world. The problem is that the secret is never particularly interesting, and the stakes feel invented rather than earned.
The romance between Tom and Hester is meant to ground the adventure, but it never clicks. Their chemistry is flat, and the dialogue is stilted. Sheehan tries his best, but the material doesn’t give him much to work with. Hilmar is more compelling, but her character is reduced to a warrior stereotype rather than a fully realized person.
Grant’s Problematic Turn
Grant plays Valentine as a corporate villain, but the performance lands uncomfortably. His sneering, smarmy delivery is fine as a caricature, but the film leans too heavily on the trope of the charismatic sociopath. It’s a dated playbook, and it doesn’t hold up next to the film’s attempts at moral complexity.
Technical Merit, Empty Core
The production values are high. The visual effects are spectacular, and the action sequences are well-staged. But the film’s technical polish can’t hide its structural weaknesses. The pacing is uneven, and the middle section drags as the film repeats the same chase-and-fight formula without adding anything new.
| Scene | Running Time |
|---|---|
| Opening London sequence | ~10 minutes |
| Tom’s exile and escape | ~15 minutes |
| Middle chase segments | ~30 minutes |
| Climax and final battle | ~20 minutes |
The film also struggles with its tone. It wants to be a grim, dystopian epic, but it keeps slipping into moments of cartoonish humor and slapstick. This tonal whiplash is jarring, and it undercuts the film’s attempts at gravity.
Where It Falls Short
The film’s biggest failure is its inability to make us care about its characters or its world. The cityscapes are beautiful, but they’re empty shells without people to fill them. The plot is convoluted, but it never becomes meaningful. And the ending, which promises a sequel, feels rushed and unsatisfying.
- The cities themselves are fascinating concepts
- The performances are mostly adequate
- The action is well-executed
- The story is thin and repetitive
- The tone shifts awkwardly between dark and silly
Mortal Engines is a film that knows how to build a world but forgets how to populate it. It’s a technical showcase that fails to engage the mind or the heart. It’s a disappointment, and it’s hard to recommend.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
