Movie Review Mortal Engines

Mortal Engines (2018) 

Directed by Christian Rivera 

Written by Fran Walsh, Phillippa Boyens, Peter Jackson

Starring Hera Hilmar, Robert Sheehan, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Lang 

Release Date December 14th, 2018

Published December 14th, 2018

Mortal Engines are a pretty big mess. It’s not terrible but this Peter Jackson produced CGI epic is lacking in numerous ways. Aside from a grand ambition, it definitely has that, Mortal Engines lacking in the kind of engaging, compelling characters that are needed to compete with the massive and rather uninteresting CGI machinery on display. The stars of Mortal Engines are not the actors but the massive machines and those machines, though impressively rendered, aren’t nearly engaging enough to make a good movie.

Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar stars in The Mortal Engines as Hester Shaw. Hester is seeking revenge against the man who murdered her mother, Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), chief weapons manufacturer for the roving city of London. What do I mean by ‘roving city’ you ask? In this universe, cities are not stuck in one place. Following a massive, apocalyptic event cities became mobile, rebuilding themselves atop massive wheels and running down other cities to steal their resources.

Hester is aboard a small mining city when London attacks it and takes hold of it. Getting on board London, Hester gets her chance to kill Valentine right away and manages to stab him before a kid named Tom (Robert Sheehan) tackles her and then chases her off the edge of the city. Before she goes, Hester tells Tom her secret about Valentine and when Tom tells Valentine what he knows, he kicks Tom off the edge of London.

Forced into the wild, Hester and Tom team up in their attempt to stay alive while Valentine survives his stabbing and sets off after someone who wants Hester dead as much as he does. Shrike is a CGI character with an incredible back story and a far more interesting storyline as a reanimated warrior machine, like a steampunk Terminator. Hester had made Shrike a promise after he saved her life and now he wants to kill her to collect on her debt

Had Mortal Engines settled on the story of Shrike and Hester, it would be one hell of a movie. Shrike is the most interesting and well built character in the movie. He’s incredibly dangerous and volatile but he has this shred of a memory that keeps him tethered to his former humanity. It was that shred that led him to keep Hester alive when he found her near death following the murder of her mother and to raise her from the age of 8 until London arrived on former European shores and she set out for revenge.

The flashbacks we see to young Hester and Shrike are more compelling than anything remotely related to Hugo Weaving’s quest for power or the neutered romance between Tom and Hester which couldn’t be more perfunctory if the studio had announced the romantic plot in a press release. Hilmar and Sheehan have the chemistry of a brother and sister who don’t particularly know or care for each other.

Make a movie about Shrike and Hester that is part Leon The Professional and part steampunk Terminator Judgment Day and you’ve got yourself quite a movie. Unfortunately, the movie we get isn’t nearly as interesting. The characters do grow on you a little as you get closer to the end of Mortal Engine but there is never a moment where they stand apart from or above the monstrous and inhuman CGI.

Even the most skillful computer generated image cannot compete with our connection to another human being. Say what you will about the creation of Gollum in Lord of the Rings or Caesar in the modern Planet of the Apes, they are nothing without the humanity of Andy Serkis behind them. We’re supposed to be impressed by the massive moving cities and the bizarre airships and weapons of mass destruction but without characters we care about around them, it’s like watching a very expensive live action cartoon, minus the laughs.

I have nothing against the young actors in Mortal Engines, they do what they can with these thin characters. The problem is director Christian Rivers who assumes we care about these characters without giving us a reason to care. Rivers has a habit of introducing characters as if their faces matter to the moment. When we meet Tom and we meet Hester, we get reveals of their faces as if we are supposed to recognize them but we don’t.

It’s not the actors fault, they are just not known to most of us watching this movie. Perhaps audiences in Iceland will cheer when Ms Hilmar’s face is revealed for the first time but most Americans will be trying to place her. Sheehan has the bland good looks of an English Justin Long but he lacks any of that actor's modest charisma and likability. One actor, who I can’t even find in the IMDB cast list, is given a reveal as if we are absolutely supposed to recognize him, the camera lingers on his face and he kind of looks like actors we’ve seen before but he isn’t and we're left to wonder. 

I don’t understand many of the choices made regarding Mortal Engines but most especially, I don’t understand the title. I have seen the entire movie and I assumed at some point the title would come to make a semblance of sense. But no, at no point does anyone bother to give a reason for the movie to be called Mortal Engines. I could make something up perhaps but I honestly don’t care enough about this movie to try that hard.

Mortal Engines are far from terrible. It’s competent and passes by well enough. It’s expensive and the expense is all on the screen in the high end CGI but there isn’t anything compelling enough to recommend you spend money on it. The characters are thin and dull, the romance is DOA and the action is of a kind you could get in any of a dozen movies you might actually enjoy and connect with.

The biggest sin of Mortal Engines however, is creating a better movie within their bad movie and leaving us so unsatisfied as we dream of what could have been. No joke, that Shrike and Hester movie had so much potential. Shrike is the best character in Mortal Engines and he’s not even real. He’s given more human qualities and dimension than the male romantic lead and his tragic backstory combined with Hester’s has a depth and complexity the rest of Mortal Engines can’t begin to evoke. I hate Mortal Engines for not being about Shrike and Hester.

Movie Review Lord of the Rings The Two Towers

Lord of the Rings The Two Towers 

Directed by Peter Jackson 

Written by Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson

Starring Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Ian McKellan, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett

Release Date December 18th, 2002 

Published December 17th, 2002 

With all the hype about the second film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, is it possible for this film not to be a little disappointing? The first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, overcame the hype to be an impressive artistic achievement. However, the impressive debut only increases the pressure on the follow-up films. So the success of Fellowship raises the bar to nearly unreachable heights for The Two Towers. That this second film nearly meets the hype is an achievement in and of itself.

We rejoin the J.R.R. Tolkien tale (as adapted by Peter Jackson and writer Frances Walsh) to find our heroic Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) lost in the hills on the way to Mordor. Hot on their huge Hobbit heels is Gollum, the former owner of the ring Frodo is charged with destroying in the fires of Mount Doom. As Frodo and Sam lay sleeping, Gollum attacks and is quickly subdued. 

Needing a guide to Mordor, the Hobbits draft Gollum and continue their quest. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Fellowship, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (Jonathan Rhys Davies), are searching for their friends Merry and Pippin who have been kidnapped by the Uruk Hai. Under the control of the evil Lord Saruman, the Uruk Hai are pillaging the countryside of the Kingdom of Rohan.

Rohan's King Theoden has, unbeknownst to the members of his family, been corrupted by Saruman leaving no one to stop the Uruk Hai. An army led by Theoden's nephew finally does rise up and stop the Uruk Hai, slaughtering a lot of them and momentarily leaving the fate of Merry and Pippin up in the air.

As it turns out, Merry and Pippin are fine, having escaped into the forest and into the arms of a walking, talking tree named Treebeard, who leads them to an amazing discovery. As Aragorn and company continue their search, they discover what Merry and Pippin had just previously discovered, that Wizard Gandalf the Gray, who was thought to be dead, is alive and after defeating the Balrog, and is now Gandalf the White. This evidently means he is more powerful than before.

Using his new power, Gandalf is able to free king Theoden from the control of Saruman. Even after being freed from Saruman, Theoden is unwilling to go to war and instead flees his kingdom for the seeming safety of the cavern castle in Helms Deep. All of this is leading to the film's centerpiece, the grandiose Battle of Helm's Deep, where Saruman's massive ten-thousand-man army of Uruk Hai fights against the several hundred residents of Rohan who aren't women or children. The kingdom's army, having left earlier in the film, are being retrieved by Gandalf, but will not make it until well into the battle.

The battle of Helms Deep is indeed a spectacle, visually awesome and seamlessly integrated. Peter Jackson's special effects are an amazing achievement; he actually manages to make all of this look plausibly real. Of course, the film's greatest technical achievement is the character of Gollum. Inhabited in part by actor Andy Serkis (but mostly CGI), Gollum is a lively and imaginative creation. Gollum manages to make an impression without being overbearing or obnoxious like his CGI brother Jar Jar Binks. Gollum is a technical masterpiece, very likely to earn the special effects team an Oscar.

As visually exciting as The Two Towers is, it lacks in many ways. The middle of the film drags to the point of being dull and when the action slows down, the clunky dialogue and earnest close-ups slam the film to a halt. The character development is lost in the waves of action and effects scenes. We know who to cheer for and why but the audience's emotional investment in the characters is limited.

Wood continues to be an unappealing actor. His Frodo is all empty gaze and pained expression. Wood is an actor with talent but limited charisma and paired with the equally dull Sean Astin, the film's most important subplot is saved only by Gollum. Viggo Mortensen, on the other hand, is very charismatic and commanding, and Ian McKellan's Gandalf, in limited screen time, delivers the most memorable moments of the film.

The action and effects of The Two Towers are overwhelming, rolling over the audience in waves. Unfortunately when the action slows down, the film drags and the lack of character development becomes more obvious.

Movie Review: The Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of The Ring

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 

Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens, Fran Walsh 

Starring Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler 

Release Date December 10th, 2001 

Published December 9th, 2001

For the first time in a long while I was able to walk into a theater with almost no knowledge of the film I was about to see. The trailers were merely teasers that didn't giveaway anything of the story, I've never read the book on which the film is based and I read no reviews of the film before seeing it. Yet the film I saw is one of the more hyped films of all time, The Lord Of the Rings Fellowship of The Ring. You're wondering how I was able to avoid learning about LOTR and what it was about. I assure you it wasn't a calculated effort. The books never appealed to me, I did know a little something about hobbits, Middle earth and fairies, but beyond that the film was entirely new to me.

Fellowship is the first in a three picture series in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It introduces the story of Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), who inherits a powerful and mysterious ring from his uncle, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm). Frodo has no idea what the ring does but is quickly clued in by the friendly wizard Gandalf (Ian Mckellen), who explains the ring's origin and that of its owner and controller, the evil Lord Sauron. The Ring, we are told, has the power to enslave all of Middle earth; thus it must be destroyed. A fellowship of 9 made up of elves, men, dwarves and hobbits must destroy the ring by returning it to the fires of Mount Doom. Oh if it were only that easy. Sauron is also searching for the ring with his allies the Orcs, and the powerful wizard Samuron (Christopher Lee) who is building an army to stop the intruders.

If you think I'm simplifying too much I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get to my point. It's been a while since we've seen such a pure good vs. evil story, I in fact thought that irony may have destroyed Hollywood's ability to tell such a story without having characters that are overly flawed and quirky. In any other action movie, Frodo would have a drinking problem or an ex-wife who complains about child support and he would make wisecracks before dispatching a villain while each of his emotions were underscored by some pop classic. Yes in that sense LOTR is a breath of fresh air.

Elijah Wood will never be confused with your average adventure hero. His Frodo Baggins is tiny and frightened and certainly not predisposed to violence. Instead, he's pretty good at running and hiding, which he does a lot of. Don't be mistaken, Wood doesn't play Frodo as a coward, he's realistic. He knows he's not a fighter and leaves the warrior stuff to the warriors. Viggo Mortensen is the true standout in the very large cast that also includes Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving. Mortensen shows some charisma and energy in Fellowship that I had not seen from him before. Here he tears into his character and allows his emotions to carry his words and he's very effective. Lord of the Rings is an epic adventure of great scale and scope. Give director Peter Jackson a lot of credit, he has created an entirely new world onscreen. He brings it to life with amazing visual flourish yet doesn't allow the film to get buried underneath it's special effects, which is quite a delicate balancing act.

Comparisons to Star Wars are warranted. The character's motivations and the action-before-dialogue style are quite reminiscent of the George Lucas creation. Character development takes a backseat to visual artistry and the latest in SFX and CGI technology. Although I prefer more character driven styles, action adventures if done well can be almost as entertaining and Lord of the Rings is very well done. 

Sidenote: Am I the only one who thought Christopher Lee looked like Osama Bin Laden? It was probably just the beard, but his first close-up was somewhat jarring.

Movie Review: The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones (2009) 

Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Peter Jackson, Phillippa Boyens, Fran Walsh (Based on the novel by Alice Sebold)

Starring Saorise Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon 

Release Date December 11th, 2009 

Published December 8th, 2009 

I have a general detachment from emotion. It's a guard against a young child version of me who was too invested in his emotions and was known to burst into tears at unfortunate moments. Other kids' reactions to my outbursts drove me inward to the man I am today. I am not cold-hearted, just well controlled, guarded. Peter Jackson's “The Lovely Bones” is the rare film that broke through my guards and tapped the well of that emotional young man I was.

The story of Susie Salmon (Oscar nominee Saorise Ronan, “Atonement”) begins with her narration explaining that her name is Salmon, like the fish communicating her innocence and her eager to please nature answering a question no one asked. She then stops you in your tracks with a matter of fact statement: "I was 14 years old when I was murdered on December 6th 1973.

From that moment on “The Lovely Bones” unfolds a story of murder, sadness and heartbreaking purity. After revealing her murderer as a neighbor named George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) Susie narrates her story from a place called The In-Between, a place between heaven and earth constructed from Susie's imagination.

Peter Jackson animates Susie's heaven with artistry absent from even his “Lord of the Rings” movies. For the first time in his career Jackson makes use of film tech to deepen his subject, not merely to animate it. The stunning landscapes of Susie's In-Between are eye popping and reveal aspects of her nature, her innocence, her longings and unfulfilled desires. A crumbling gazebo holds a particular emotional attachment that I will leave you to discover.

From her In-Between Susie watches how her death impacts her family. Her father Jack becomes so consumed with catching her killer that he barely notices his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz) is drifting away. It's not until her cab leaves for the airport that Jack realizes she is gone. Susie also watches her killer, George Harvey. He has a past filled with other murders but for some reason Susie's murder has a particular hold on his conscience. He spends hours alone seeming to re-live each moment, moments thankfully unseen by us in the audience. The choice to leave the cruel details to our imagination is a controversial one; the book by Alice Sebold went into obsessive detail.

For me, leaving Susie's suffering to the imagination was the right call; I doubt that I could have endured watching the effervescent Ms. Ronan suffering as described in the book. We are given enough detail to construct the horror for ourselves and that is more than enough. Transformed by make-up Stanley Tucci crafts a killer of remarkable repugnance. Today, George Harvey would be the poster boy for creepy. He looks like the picture of someone who murders children. A mumbling, ill at-ease creep, George Harvey sets off alarm bells for his simple lack of social skills. In the 1973 of the film however, he's just a slightly off shut-in, on the surface.

Once he becomes suspect number one, for Jack and daughter Lindsey (Rose McIver), who joins her dad's obsessive crusade, the film takes on a pseudo murder mystery feel that enlivens the middle portion of the film. We know he did it, they think he did it and we become desperately involved in trying to will the characters to the clues we know are there. This clever bit of populist narrative is just one of Peter Jackson's wise choices. Jackson has made an art film, crossed it with a thriller and topped it all with a deeply emotional story of coming of age. It's almost too much for one film to hold, changing scenes as this does from Susie's gorgeous art-scape to George Harvey's dark chambers to the Salmon house consumed by grief and the urgent search for justice.

Only a director as bold and daring as Peter Jackson could pull off such a trick. His experience with the “Lord of the Rings” informs a good deal of “The Lovely Bones.” In LOTR Jackson used technology as a construction device. In “The Lovely Bones” that construction device becomes a painter's brush and the technology melts into the subconscious aiding as much in storytelling as in craftsmanship. Unlike George Lucas or James Cameron for whom CGI remains a carpenter’s tool, Jackson sees technology in “The Lovely Bones” as something to be woven into the fabric of storytelling. Susie's In-Between is never merely a place; it's the state of her soul where her imagination and desires take a physical hold.

Technology, story and character unite in “The Lovely Bones” to create a deeply emotional experience that transports you into the sadness of a little girl gone before her time. An examination of grief, unfulfilled desires, love and death, “The Lovely Bones” is one of the most daring and original works in years and one of the best films of the last year.