BroadcastChic
Excellent, a Must See
Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
GarnettTeenage
The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.
alexanderdavies-99382
It's usually the case that just because a film happens to be on the old side, it is therefore not worth watching! My goodness, some people have no idea what they are missing! "Things to Come" is a loose adaptation of the novel by H.G Wells. His book had only been published three years before the release of this movie. It is interesting to note that although Wells himself wrote the screenplay, he didn't use much of his own original material. The acting honours go to Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson and Cedric Hardwicke. They, along with the rest of the cast, have some wonderful dialogue to work with. The film's plot is more of a series of stories that reflect mankind and how his own planet evolves throughout the ages. The setting begins in the year of 1940 and finishes round abouts the 1980s. Beginning with a long war, a plague that results from it and then the gradual development and advancement of progress via the latest technology, "Things to Come" offers a fascinating insight into the evolution that our world would supposedly undergo during that aforementioned time period. H.G Wells was right in one sense, in that a world war would indeed occur by 1940. In his other predictions however, he wasn't quite so accurate. Raymond Massey plays two characters - including the descendant of the character he plays at the beginning. He is one for leading the way in terms of man's technological advances, which he does but at a cost. Cedric Hardwicke is the leader of a group of rebels who openly oppose any plans for any further progress. Ralph Richardson is excellent as the rather ruthless and tyrannical leader who rules over a post apocalyptic world with an iron fist. He resorts to hinder any hopes of man advancing himself and society in general. The people under his rule, only have the most elementary means at their disposal, with regards to manufacturing clothing, food, shelter etc. This is a fairly lavish and expensive film by the British Film Industry's usual standards as the production values are first class. The sets - in particular those that represent the future - evoke such feelings of wonder and awe. Sets and any special effects in those days, could only be achieved the old fashioned way and better for it. No CGI nonsense. Don't miss this masterpiece, you won't be disappointed!
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-
capone666
Things to ComeThe first thing to do in a post-apocalyptic world is execute all the psychics for not warning us ahead of time.Thankfully, the citizens in this sci-fi movie received many declarations of war.An air raid on Everytown from an unknown adversary sets off a global conflict that finds resident John Cabal (Raymond Massey) enlisting as an airman.Decades later, the war-torn town is devoid of technology as society has deteriorated into a dystopian wasteland controlled by warlords.But engineers have created an advanced civilization in the desert that will lead humanity into a new technological age.Exploring the evolution of humanity through the ashes of war and regenerative powers of progress, this 1936 adaptation of H.G. Wells' novel may suffer from longwinded diatribes but its unique narrative and stylized set designs are worth it.Moreover, dystopian futures are the reason the sewer housing market is so hot right now.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca
LeonLouisRicci
Didactic and Philosophically laden, this is a Grandiose Vision of Civilization and its Place in the Animal Kingdom. H.G.Wells, a Proud Socialist and Pacifist, Thought (erroneously) that He was on His Game here and Demanded Command on the Set, and in No Uncertain Terms unleashed a Dictate on the "Sign of the Times" and the "Things to Come".It is Clear that this is Wells (who was involved and dictatorial during production) Heavy Handed Verbiage Intruding when the Shakespearean Overacting begins to enter this Visually Vibrant and Awe Inspiring Film. The Actors do their Best to Upstage the Breathtaking Backgrounds, and are a Poor Contrast.This is a One of Kind Movie and does not lend itself to Comparison as it is a Stand Alone Compilation of Fact and Fiction, Art and Literature.Only Metropolis (1927) can offer such Stimulation of Cinematic Brush Work. It has such a Sensation of Art-Deco Beauty for the Expressionistic design and it makes the Industrial Revolution Look Attractive.It is Overwritten and there is very Little Subtlety. There is one Scene of Understatement and Poignancy, where two Aviators are brought together After a Crash. There is also one Shot of a Child's Death complete with Blood dripping from the little one's Face. This is a Powerful Anti-War Statement that does more than Projecting Dialog and Flailing Arms.It is Wells' Ideas that are brought to the Screen with Pictures that end up Ironically the Best. The Pompous, Thoughtful, and Noble Prose is so Overwrought that it Distracts and is Detrimental.Simply the Author's Words and Ideas were Not Transmutable to the Medium of Film in this Way and in this Case.
