nyarlath Opinions come and go about this film. Still it moves me. It's easy to criticize the historical inaccuracy or the stilted dialog. Over time I've heard attacks on the scientific optimism of Cabal's final speech as a call to fascism! But that sentiment seems to go hand in hand with the Luddite reaction clearly illustrated at the end of the film. So far there's been no alternate vision to human progress that has actually worked. Most people don't realize how close we have come to war caused impoverishment and devastation much like that shown in the movie. Nerve gas and anthrax use was seriously contemplated during WWII. And many battles could have by chance gone differently than they did extending a 5 year war into a ruinous 10, 20 year horror that might have reduced us to what we see in the middle of the film. And lets not even talk about the nuclear genie that got us real close several times.

ben hibburd Things to Come is the loosely based cinematic adaptation of H.G Wells novel The Shape of Things to Come. The film is an interesting but dated what if.. scenario about the petty and destructive nature of mankind. It's a film that looks at how we hate what we fear or simply don't understand. It also shows what we could achieve as a civilisation if we put aside our differences and focused on science to propel ourselves towards a better tomorrow. However seeing as how man is at the forefront of scientific progress, will it benefit mankind or are we doomed to repeat past failures?Things to Come has lofty ambitions, and whilst it doesn't quite reach the heights it set, it remains a fascinating Sci-Fi story that's worthy of your attention. The films vision covers multiple centuries. Starting in 1940 we see the world collapse and societies revert to a feudal state, with the remaining pockets of society lead by competing warlords. That is until a progressive society of the last remaining engineers and airman reclaim the lands in the name of humanity with their mighty airforce. Which leads to an era of peace and progress all the way until 2036, when things start to come un-done again.William Cameron Menzies directs the film, and whilst his style is fairly simplistic, the films pacing is excellent and is finely balanced between each time period. The set design and cinematography also do a good job of differentiating the multiple eras in the film, and making them all feel unique.The films biggest setback is that there's absolutely zero characterisation given to anyone in this film. By the end I couldn't remember a single character which isn't a good sign. In the films defence you could argue that it focuses on humanity as a collective whole, which is a valid enough argument. The problem is that this causes the film to become less engaging when the characters are completely dull, and are given next to nothing to work with.Over-all Things to Come is required viewing for anyone that loves the Sci-Fi genre, a-lot of the films themes are still relevant in today's society. Whilst some of the films motives and social commentary occasionally feel patronising. It sets about asking important questions that makes Sci-Fi so important and special, and for that it's worth your investment.

Wuchak Released in 1936 and based on HG Wells' 1933 book, "Things to Come" envisions a future that suffers three decades of world war, a human-made plague and a new one-world order that opens the way for space travel. Wells' story was a fantastical hope for a future in which everybody will "come to Jesus" only to him "Jesus" was socialism and obeying a world government. To come to this point we must first endure a second world war that lasts 30 years and destroys the planet, thrusting us into a new Dark Age. As such, this is a post-apocalyptic movie with the corresponding 'mutants' (the plague victims) decades before that genre came into vogue.While I reject socialism (which is basically communism with a smile), there's a lot of truth to Wells' message, which was that the individual's life and actions are inconsequential when compared to the purpose and progress of the entire human race. Both the film's ideology and message are irrelevant to whether a movie is entertaining or not, for me anyway. The problem with "Things to Come" is the story itself, which focuses on three basic times: 1940 (which was five years in the future when the film was made), 1970 and 2036. The mid-section is the longest and dullest, focusing on an annoyingly pompous warlord called "The Boss" or "The Chief" (Ralph Richardson). The story structure simply isn't conducive to involving characters and movie-length drive. The last act is interesting not because of the story but due to its depiction of the future (2036), which is similar to the futuristic portrayal seen in 1976' "Logan's Run" and pretty much holds up. Wells was way off, however, in regards to humanity making it to the moon, which took place 70 years before his prediction.In its day I'm sure this was an amazing movie, dull characters & tale or not, but great films hold up over time, like 1933's "King Kong" and 1939's "The Wizard of Oz." "Things to Come" generally doesn't. Yet it's still worth checking out as a period piece. The film was shot in B&W, but there's a colorized version (which I viewed). It runs 100 minutes and was shot in Denham Studios, Buckinghamshire, England. DIRECTOR: William Cameron Menzies. GRADE: C-

Python Hyena Things to Come (1936): Dir: William Cameron Menzies / Cast: Raymond Massey, Edward Chapman, Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Richardson, Margaretta Scott: Early science fiction film with a title that refers to our unpredictable future and dire uncertainty but the film's structure is completely predictable. A strange being lands on earth with a message. He doesn't tell us to give up smoking or use a particular brand of deodorant. No, he tells us everything that we do not want to hear because there isn't a soul in the film who listens to him anyway. He shows up wearing a helmet big enough for ten heads. Not exactly original and mainly serves as a showcase for special effects that render the film worthwhile. Well directed by William Cameron Menzies but painfully corny at times. It taps into one's imagination when it comes to our expectations to the unknown. Raymond Massey does well as this ominous figure whom transcends much turmoil and observes mankind's faults. The only interesting supporting role is Ralph Richardson as a warlord advocating destruction and the manufacturing of biplanes. As the ending indicates, this sort of ruling often goes down with the planes. Many of the performances are either flat or over the top. Among them are Edward Chapman and Cedric Hardwicke. The film was an attempt to push special effects further to greater things to come. Score: 6 / 10