This sci-fi masterpiece has too many flaws after the editors had butchered it after its opening in 1936. Visually it is a wonder to behold, but the script allows too many intellectual speeches about war and progress.This gets very corny when the actors are given to recite a lot of high minded messages at all times.Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke,both great actors,come off as quite a pair of fanatics. Ralph Richardson is very good as the "The Boss" a megalomaniac warlord. The prediction of World War II was very eerie considering that the world was on the brink of the most devastating conflict in human history at the time. I'm sure glad that war didn't turn out as it did in the movie. There are some visually stunning montage sequences bridging the leaps of time between the movie's different episodes. Although its not as entertaining as I hoped it would be,this movie sticks in your mind long after you've seen it.
161 Reviews
Despite The Flaws A Hugely Imaginative Piece Of Science Fiction
Theo Robertson11 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .
THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later
That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive
THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later
That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive
The Future through the perspective of 1936.
ChuckStraub10 May 2004
Things to Come is a look into the future from the perspective of the people of 1936. By today's standards and with hindsight, it seems a little corny but to the people of that time, the movie showed what could have been a real possibility. This sci-fi movie shows the horrors of war and the price of progress predicted by a film made in 1936 by eyes that were looking at a world on the brink of World War II. It's a movie that shows what they thought the world would be like if a major war broke out. One good reason for viewing this film is because it shows this perspective, and because it was one of the early serious attempts of a science fiction film that takes a look into the future. For those interested in the history of early sci-fi in the cinema, Things To Come is a must see.
Art Deco Science Fiction
jacksflicks4 May 2004
There are some film classics that we have almost lost. I don't mean the might-have-beens, like Laughton's "I Claudius," but films that were released and quite successful and are now in grave need of rescue. The hallmark of such films is the terrible quality of the available prints because the master negative is lost. "My Man Godfrey" and "Nothing Sacred" come to mind. And, of course, "Things to Come".
If the abstractions of the art deco aesthetic could be reified into a story, "Things to Come" might be the result. If the Chrysler Building really were a rocket ship and could fly past the moon and stars and comets of art deco friezes...if we could look into those naive mindsets, whose visions of man's destiny were being energized by the discoveries of relativity, atomic energy and deep space...we might indeed embrace the images of "Things to Come".
Some of the scenes may strike us a corny - as might those of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" - but they are no cornier in their context than those in "2001, a Space Odyssey" or, for that matter, "Starship Troopers". Here is an honest attempt to project the world into the future, not some silly cowboys-in-space flick.
"Things to Come" makes only a couple of demands: first, that we ditch our smug sophistication and presentist prejudices; second, that we have the discipline to see past the print quality. It may take repeated viewings, as it did with me, but in the end you will be rewarded by a unique odyssey, not into our future but into the future of history.
If the abstractions of the art deco aesthetic could be reified into a story, "Things to Come" might be the result. If the Chrysler Building really were a rocket ship and could fly past the moon and stars and comets of art deco friezes...if we could look into those naive mindsets, whose visions of man's destiny were being energized by the discoveries of relativity, atomic energy and deep space...we might indeed embrace the images of "Things to Come".
Some of the scenes may strike us a corny - as might those of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" - but they are no cornier in their context than those in "2001, a Space Odyssey" or, for that matter, "Starship Troopers". Here is an honest attempt to project the world into the future, not some silly cowboys-in-space flick.
"Things to Come" makes only a couple of demands: first, that we ditch our smug sophistication and presentist prejudices; second, that we have the discipline to see past the print quality. It may take repeated viewings, as it did with me, but in the end you will be rewarded by a unique odyssey, not into our future but into the future of history.
The future, half right, half amazing, quite a startling vision of things to come
secondtake24 November 2010
Things to Come (1935)
It's tough to make a movie about the future, and it's even tougher when the future overtakes the movie. We saw it literally in "1984" and "2001." And we see it in the tea leaves with movies of the near future like "Minority Report" or "AI" or, just for the fun of it, "Sleeper." Or "Brazil." Or "Twelve Monkeys."
Yes, it can go any number of ways, and a writer and director can look to make things realistic enough to go with the fantasy, or make things fantastic and the hell with realism. I'm not talking the distant future, like "Star Wars" but the kind of future we might live to see, you know, "Planet of the Apes." These kinds of movies are everywhere, and they are a kind of thrill just for their vision of the future.
"Things to Come" was made as Europe was teetering toward war but there was only the Spanish Civil War under way. The way it "foresees" a devastating world war is pretty amazing, even now, as long as you keep the dates straight. When it jumps (after half an hour of some pretty terrific filming) to 1970, it gets more fictional, and we have a primitive future of devastation and a struggling rabble trying to survive, and revive civilization. It's a common way to look at the unknown--to revert to a primitive time--and it's fun and a little overwhelming if you take it seriously. The big theme of war, and of a future society opposed to war, is an old one but who can get tired of it?
The first half hour is a wonder of Soviet Expressionist filming. I know, this is a British movie, very British (except, oddly, the director Menzies), but it looks like Eisenstein both filmed it and edited it, and the effect is amazing. If you only have half an hour, watch just this first part and don't worry too much about the plot. The remainder of the movie settles down, and looks a little like either "Intolerance" (yes, 1916 stuff, with big outdoor sets) or "Caligari" (German Expressionist interiors, tamed down a bit). In a word, this is an old fashioned movie in the best way--it's artsy and exuberant. And it's not forward looking for a movie about the future until it reaches the 21st Century, and then it gets amazingly right the prevalence of imagery, of transparent, electronic images on screens large and small, even if they are wearing Roman togas.
H.G. Wells not only wrote the original novel, but he wrote the screenplay, which makes the movie significant through and through. It is sometimes ponderous and trying too hard to be idealistic amidst human instinct for violence and control. After a fabulous (fabulous) montage sequence to move us ahead another half century, we continue the rather boring discussion (talk) about the future of the world, and the value of civilization. It's amazing to look at, but it's not an exciting thing to hear discussed. In short, it lacks plot. Luckily it has a lot of other stuff to compensate.
It's tough to make a movie about the future, and it's even tougher when the future overtakes the movie. We saw it literally in "1984" and "2001." And we see it in the tea leaves with movies of the near future like "Minority Report" or "AI" or, just for the fun of it, "Sleeper." Or "Brazil." Or "Twelve Monkeys."
Yes, it can go any number of ways, and a writer and director can look to make things realistic enough to go with the fantasy, or make things fantastic and the hell with realism. I'm not talking the distant future, like "Star Wars" but the kind of future we might live to see, you know, "Planet of the Apes." These kinds of movies are everywhere, and they are a kind of thrill just for their vision of the future.
"Things to Come" was made as Europe was teetering toward war but there was only the Spanish Civil War under way. The way it "foresees" a devastating world war is pretty amazing, even now, as long as you keep the dates straight. When it jumps (after half an hour of some pretty terrific filming) to 1970, it gets more fictional, and we have a primitive future of devastation and a struggling rabble trying to survive, and revive civilization. It's a common way to look at the unknown--to revert to a primitive time--and it's fun and a little overwhelming if you take it seriously. The big theme of war, and of a future society opposed to war, is an old one but who can get tired of it?
The first half hour is a wonder of Soviet Expressionist filming. I know, this is a British movie, very British (except, oddly, the director Menzies), but it looks like Eisenstein both filmed it and edited it, and the effect is amazing. If you only have half an hour, watch just this first part and don't worry too much about the plot. The remainder of the movie settles down, and looks a little like either "Intolerance" (yes, 1916 stuff, with big outdoor sets) or "Caligari" (German Expressionist interiors, tamed down a bit). In a word, this is an old fashioned movie in the best way--it's artsy and exuberant. And it's not forward looking for a movie about the future until it reaches the 21st Century, and then it gets amazingly right the prevalence of imagery, of transparent, electronic images on screens large and small, even if they are wearing Roman togas.
H.G. Wells not only wrote the original novel, but he wrote the screenplay, which makes the movie significant through and through. It is sometimes ponderous and trying too hard to be idealistic amidst human instinct for violence and control. After a fabulous (fabulous) montage sequence to move us ahead another half century, we continue the rather boring discussion (talk) about the future of the world, and the value of civilization. It's amazing to look at, but it's not an exciting thing to hear discussed. In short, it lacks plot. Luckily it has a lot of other stuff to compensate.
One of the great science fiction films
lbliss31425 June 2005
Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.
Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.
Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.
Classic of the British science fiction genre with magnificent sets and top-drawer cast
ma-cortes5 July 2005
The picture is a right adaptation of the novel titled ¨The shape of things to come¨ by H.G.Wells . A story of 100 years : a decades-long second world war leaves plague and anarchy . The film narrates like after a lengthly war among nations and continuing with plagues , rampages and starvation the world is destroyed . A country ruled by a tyrant (Ralph Richardson) fights against an airplanes confederation (leading Raymond Massey) . Then a rational state rebuilds civilization and tries space travel . As utilizing technology , wisemen and scientists try to rebuild the future world creating a peaceable society .
The motion picture is agreeable and very interesting though when the protagonists speak philosophical speeches is a little boring . Raymond Massey interprets two roles on different generations , at the future world plays a ruler , builder a sidereal rocket , in opposition to Sir Cedric Hardwicke who is facing the progress . The excellent main cast is completed with habitual actors of the British theater and with important cinematographic careers , thus : Ralph Richardson (Greystoke and four feathers) , Anne Todd (Paradine case) , Derrick De Mornay (Young and innocent) , Raymond Massey (Lincoln in Ilinois) and Sir Cedric Hardwicke (Ten commandments) . Cinematography is very good although in black and white and was realized by excellent cameraman George Perinal (Thief of Bagdad and Colonel Blimp).
Arthur Bliss music score is atmospheric and conducted by usual orchestra director of the classic British films : Muir Matheson . Production Design by Vincent Korda is fine as well as spectacular , he's considered to be the best British designer of that epoch . His brother Alexander Korda was the main English producer . The film was well directed by William Cameron Menzies who subsequent directed another Sci-Fi classic , Invaders from Mars . Rating: Good . Above average .
The motion picture is agreeable and very interesting though when the protagonists speak philosophical speeches is a little boring . Raymond Massey interprets two roles on different generations , at the future world plays a ruler , builder a sidereal rocket , in opposition to Sir Cedric Hardwicke who is facing the progress . The excellent main cast is completed with habitual actors of the British theater and with important cinematographic careers , thus : Ralph Richardson (Greystoke and four feathers) , Anne Todd (Paradine case) , Derrick De Mornay (Young and innocent) , Raymond Massey (Lincoln in Ilinois) and Sir Cedric Hardwicke (Ten commandments) . Cinematography is very good although in black and white and was realized by excellent cameraman George Perinal (Thief of Bagdad and Colonel Blimp).
Arthur Bliss music score is atmospheric and conducted by usual orchestra director of the classic British films : Muir Matheson . Production Design by Vincent Korda is fine as well as spectacular , he's considered to be the best British designer of that epoch . His brother Alexander Korda was the main English producer . The film was well directed by William Cameron Menzies who subsequent directed another Sci-Fi classic , Invaders from Mars . Rating: Good . Above average .
"Wings over the World!"
HenryHextonEsq30 January 2003
I must admit a slight disappointment with this film; I had read a lot about how spectacular it was, yet the actual futuristic sequences, the Age of Science, take up a very small amount of the film. The sets and are excellent when we get to them, and there are some startling images, but this final sequence is lacking in too many other regards...
Much the best drama of the piece is in the mid-section, and then it plays as melodrama, arising from the 'high concept' science-fiction nature of it all, and insufficiently robust dialogue. There is far more human life in this part though, with the great Ralph Richardson sailing gloriously over-the-top as the small dictator, the "Boss" of the Everytown. I loved Richardson's mannerisms and curt delivery of lines, dismissing the presence and ideas of Raymond Massey's aloof, confident visitor. This Boss is a posturing, convincingly deluded figure, unable to realise the small-fry nature of his kingdom... It's not a great role, yet Richardson makes a lot of it.
Everytown itself is presumably meant to be England, or at least an English town fairly representative of England. Interesting was the complete avoidance of any religious side to things; the 'things to come' seem to revolve around a conflict between warlike barbarism and a a faith in science that seems to have little ultimate goal, but to just go on and on. There is a belated attempt to raise some arguments and tensions in the last section, concerning more personal 'life', yet one is left quite unsatisfied. The film hasn't got much interest in subtle complexities; it goes for barnstorming spectacle and unsubtle, blunt moralism, every time. And, of course, recall the hedged-bet finale: Raymond Massey waxing lyrical about how uncertain things are!
Concerning the question of the film being a prediction: I must say it's not at all bad as such, considering that one obviously allows that it is impossible to gets the details of life anything like right. The grander conceptions have something to them; a war in 1940, well that was perhaps predictable... Lasting nearly 30 years, mind!? A nuclear bomb - the "super gun" or some such contraption - in 2036... A technocratic socialist "we don't believe in independent nation states"-type government, in Britain, after 1970... Hmmm, sadly nowhere near on that one, chaps! ;-) No real politics are gone into here which is a shame; all that surfaces is a very laudable anti-war sentiment. Generally, it is assumed that dictatorship - whether boneheaded-luddite-fascist, as under the Boss, or all-hands-to-the-pump scientific socialism - will *be the deal*, and these implications are not broached... While we must remember that in 1936, there was no knowledge at all of how Nazism and Communism would turn out - or even how they were turning out - the lack of consideration of this seems meek beside the scope of the filmmakers' vision on other matters.
Much of the earlier stuff should - and could - have been cut in my opinion; only the briefest stuff from '1940' would have been necessary, yet this segment tends to get rather ponderous, and it is ages before we get to the Richardson-Massey parts. I would have liked to have seen more done with Margareta Scott; who is just a trifle sceptical, cutting a flashing-eyed Mediterranean figure to negligible purpose. The character is not explored, or frankly explained or exploited, except for one scene which I shall not spoil, and her relationship with the Boss isn't explored; but then this was the 1930s, and there was such a thing as widespread institutional censorship back then. Edward Chapman is mildly amusing in his two roles; more so in the first as a hapless chap, praying for war, only to be bluntly put down by another Massey character. Massey himself helps things a lot, playing his parts with a mixture of restraint and sombre gusto, contrasting well with a largely diffident cast, save for Richardson, and Scott and Chapman, slightly.
I would say that "Things to Come" is undoubtedly a very extraordinary film to have been made in Britain in 1936; one of the few serious British science fiction films to date, indeed! Its set (piece) design and harnessing of resources are ravenous, marvellous.
Yet, the script is ultimately over-earnest and, at times, all over the place. The direction is prone to a flatness, though it does step up a scenic gear or two upon occasion. The cinematographer and Mr Richardson really do salvage things however; respectively creating an awed sense of wonder at technology, and an engaging, jerky performance that consistently beguiles. Such a shame there is so little substance or real filmic conception to the whole thing; Powell and Pressburger would have been the perfect directors to take on such a task as this - they are without peer among British directors as daring visual storytellers, great helmsmen of characters and dealers in dialogue of the first rate.
"Things to Come", as it stands, is an intriguing oddity, well worth perusing, yet far short of a "Metropolis"... 'Tis much as "silly", in Wells' words, as that Lang film, yet with nothing like the astonishing force of it.
Much the best drama of the piece is in the mid-section, and then it plays as melodrama, arising from the 'high concept' science-fiction nature of it all, and insufficiently robust dialogue. There is far more human life in this part though, with the great Ralph Richardson sailing gloriously over-the-top as the small dictator, the "Boss" of the Everytown. I loved Richardson's mannerisms and curt delivery of lines, dismissing the presence and ideas of Raymond Massey's aloof, confident visitor. This Boss is a posturing, convincingly deluded figure, unable to realise the small-fry nature of his kingdom... It's not a great role, yet Richardson makes a lot of it.
Everytown itself is presumably meant to be England, or at least an English town fairly representative of England. Interesting was the complete avoidance of any religious side to things; the 'things to come' seem to revolve around a conflict between warlike barbarism and a a faith in science that seems to have little ultimate goal, but to just go on and on. There is a belated attempt to raise some arguments and tensions in the last section, concerning more personal 'life', yet one is left quite unsatisfied. The film hasn't got much interest in subtle complexities; it goes for barnstorming spectacle and unsubtle, blunt moralism, every time. And, of course, recall the hedged-bet finale: Raymond Massey waxing lyrical about how uncertain things are!
Concerning the question of the film being a prediction: I must say it's not at all bad as such, considering that one obviously allows that it is impossible to gets the details of life anything like right. The grander conceptions have something to them; a war in 1940, well that was perhaps predictable... Lasting nearly 30 years, mind!? A nuclear bomb - the "super gun" or some such contraption - in 2036... A technocratic socialist "we don't believe in independent nation states"-type government, in Britain, after 1970... Hmmm, sadly nowhere near on that one, chaps! ;-) No real politics are gone into here which is a shame; all that surfaces is a very laudable anti-war sentiment. Generally, it is assumed that dictatorship - whether boneheaded-luddite-fascist, as under the Boss, or all-hands-to-the-pump scientific socialism - will *be the deal*, and these implications are not broached... While we must remember that in 1936, there was no knowledge at all of how Nazism and Communism would turn out - or even how they were turning out - the lack of consideration of this seems meek beside the scope of the filmmakers' vision on other matters.
Much of the earlier stuff should - and could - have been cut in my opinion; only the briefest stuff from '1940' would have been necessary, yet this segment tends to get rather ponderous, and it is ages before we get to the Richardson-Massey parts. I would have liked to have seen more done with Margareta Scott; who is just a trifle sceptical, cutting a flashing-eyed Mediterranean figure to negligible purpose. The character is not explored, or frankly explained or exploited, except for one scene which I shall not spoil, and her relationship with the Boss isn't explored; but then this was the 1930s, and there was such a thing as widespread institutional censorship back then. Edward Chapman is mildly amusing in his two roles; more so in the first as a hapless chap, praying for war, only to be bluntly put down by another Massey character. Massey himself helps things a lot, playing his parts with a mixture of restraint and sombre gusto, contrasting well with a largely diffident cast, save for Richardson, and Scott and Chapman, slightly.
I would say that "Things to Come" is undoubtedly a very extraordinary film to have been made in Britain in 1936; one of the few serious British science fiction films to date, indeed! Its set (piece) design and harnessing of resources are ravenous, marvellous.
Yet, the script is ultimately over-earnest and, at times, all over the place. The direction is prone to a flatness, though it does step up a scenic gear or two upon occasion. The cinematographer and Mr Richardson really do salvage things however; respectively creating an awed sense of wonder at technology, and an engaging, jerky performance that consistently beguiles. Such a shame there is so little substance or real filmic conception to the whole thing; Powell and Pressburger would have been the perfect directors to take on such a task as this - they are without peer among British directors as daring visual storytellers, great helmsmen of characters and dealers in dialogue of the first rate.
"Things to Come", as it stands, is an intriguing oddity, well worth perusing, yet far short of a "Metropolis"... 'Tis much as "silly", in Wells' words, as that Lang film, yet with nothing like the astonishing force of it.
great,...because there is NOTHING like it!
planktonrules29 March 2006
Aside from the great movie METROPOLIS, this is about the oldest pure sci-fi movie. While at times the film is a bit preachy and the acting can be a bit broad, it is a great film for two reasons. First, it is extremely original in both style and content. Even in the 21st century, there are no films I can think of that are anything like it. Second, for its time, the special effects were absolutely incredible--using matte paintings, models and huge casts to create amazing scenes of both a post-apocalyptic world and a vast city of tomorrow. Sure, you could sit back and knock the film because, by today's standards, the effects are only so-so. But, you must appreciate that this was state of the art when the film came out in 1936 and it must have really amazed audiences. In many ways, the sets look highly reminiscent of the "modern cities" featured at the 1939 WORLD'S FAIR.
I think the movie is also interesting because it seems torn by the question "are people really THAT stupid or are we destined for greatness?" The end result seems to be a little of both! How true!
A final note: I saw this twice on TV and just a short time ago on video. All three times the sound and print quality stank--particularly the sound. If this is available on a DVD, hopefully it is a lot cleaner and will provide optional captioning. As the sound on the video kept cutting out, I really would have appreciated this!
I think the movie is also interesting because it seems torn by the question "are people really THAT stupid or are we destined for greatness?" The end result seems to be a little of both! How true!
A final note: I saw this twice on TV and just a short time ago on video. All three times the sound and print quality stank--particularly the sound. If this is available on a DVD, hopefully it is a lot cleaner and will provide optional captioning. As the sound on the video kept cutting out, I really would have appreciated this!
Lovely To Look At
boblipton2 October 2020
William Cameron Menzies' movie is quite beautiful - as it should be, considering his background - and it raises the question of how much work Vincent Korda did.
It's a beautiful movie, even though, like all Important Science Fiction, it's a bit erratic in its story line. I usually think that if you want to send a message, you should use Western Union (although they've been out of that business for more than a decade). Great cast, with Ralph Richardson playing Mussolini, and Raymond Massey in a multiply heroic role,
Nonetheless, the story is very clunky, and there's way too much speechifying. Editor William Hornbeck manages to keep things moving, but the principal pleasure is, of course, the immense sets.
It's a beautiful movie, even though, like all Important Science Fiction, it's a bit erratic in its story line. I usually think that if you want to send a message, you should use Western Union (although they've been out of that business for more than a decade). Great cast, with Ralph Richardson playing Mussolini, and Raymond Massey in a multiply heroic role,
Nonetheless, the story is very clunky, and there's way too much speechifying. Editor William Hornbeck manages to keep things moving, but the principal pleasure is, of course, the immense sets.
Didn't work for me, but I'm obviously in the minority
BrandtSponseller4 July 2005
Obviously, I didn't care for Things to Come (aka "The Shape of Things to Come") as much as most viewers. That means that there is a good chance that you'll enjoy it more than I did. At any rate, you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view.
Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.
The film opens in 1940 in a London-like "Everytown". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.
That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.
It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.
In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.
But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is "a film about ideas". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.
The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude "progress"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.
That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.
Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the "wandering sickness" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.
Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.
Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his "predictions". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.
Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.
The film opens in 1940 in a London-like "Everytown". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.
That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.
It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.
In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.
But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is "a film about ideas". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.
The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude "progress"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.
That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.
Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the "wandering sickness" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.
Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.
Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his "predictions". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.
A troubling epic.
Essex_Rider30 July 2004
I first saw this as a child living in East London. The scars of Hitlers Luftwaffe were all too evident and the landscape of the movie was reminiscent of our street. I remember having nightmares after seeing it. The odd thing is, it really hasn't dated if viewed as a piece of social history in Cinema fiction.
Apart from a globally destructive war, the scale of the machines was badly awry, more Nano-Technology now, but overall, an excellent and well-crafted work. It was interesting to see how space travel was perceived back then. I would think that firing a spacecraft from a gigantic gun would almost certainly kill the astronauts. However, much was right. Mans desire for war, mans inhumanity to man. The means of war as a catalyst for development.
Apart from a globally destructive war, the scale of the machines was badly awry, more Nano-Technology now, but overall, an excellent and well-crafted work. It was interesting to see how space travel was perceived back then. I would think that firing a spacecraft from a gigantic gun would almost certainly kill the astronauts. However, much was right. Mans desire for war, mans inhumanity to man. The means of war as a catalyst for development.
The Vidiot Reviews...
capone66614 March 2016
Things to Come
The 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 Light
vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca
The 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 Light
vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca
The Authoritarian Impulse
stephenclark111 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
?Released in Britain in 1936, as the first drumbeats of World War II began with Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland, Things to Come was an epic science-fiction film, the first of its kind in English, full of presentiments of the coming catastrophe, and exemplary of the idealism of the decade that fueled that catastrophe.
The film opens projecting four years into the future, to 1940, in "Everytown" that looks suspiciously like London. It's Christmas and the world stands at the brink of war. When hostilities break out, troops are mobilized, and we see an eerily prescient depiction of the bombing of the city with mass pandemonium and destruction. Thousands of planes cross the cliffs of Dover, poison gas rains from the sky.
The war drags on for ten and then twenty years. A plague appears, "The Wandering Sickness." By 1966, Everytown is a ruin, the few survivors scratching out a bare subsistence among the rubble. By 1970, the sickness has burned out and an autocratic subsistence society has emerged among the wreckage of the previous civilization. This is the first post- apocalyptic dystopian movie, with horse-drawn autos and airplanes grounded by lack of petrol, small scale warfare continuing on horseback and on foot.
Then from the sky descends a futuristic aircraft piloted by a former resident of the town, played by Raymond Massey. His flight-suit is ridiculous by our standards, but cutting-edge by 1930's criteria. He represents an alliance of the pre-war engineers and mechanics, "Wings Over the World," banded together to reclaim the world from brigandage. Massey waxes poetic in describing his group: "The Brotherhood of Efficiency!, The Freemasonry of Science!"--an end to bosses and the rule of civilization itself. Seeming to be the voice of Light and Order and Science, Massey still represents his own brand of well-intended authoritarianism, banning private ownership of airplanes and local autonomous authority independent of his group. "A conspiracy of bus drivers," as the local boss derisively describes them.
Of course the Old Order and the New Order come to blows, but it's no contest. A flotilla of tremendous futuristic airships, looking like Jack Northrop's B-35 Flying Wing, trundle overhead and the New Order, ironically, gases the town, not with poison but with a gentle sedative mist, "The Gas of Peace." The Old Order quietly euthanized, the New Order paratroops in and sets things aright. "And now for the rule of the air and a new life for mankind," Massey intones to a great fanfare.
On cannot help note, though, that the soldiers of "Wings Over the World," dress in snappy black suits that recall the sartorial flare of the SS. They speak in a dynamic verbiage that the Nazis could have related to. What follows is a montage of the rise of the new age, but its not a placid sight to contemporary eyes, with great machines drilling and excavating and exploding, generators whirring, assembly lines churning, people in futuristic jump suits careening about. It seems that everyone exists just to service machines, wearing isolation suits as if the environment were not entirely healthy.
Flash forward to Everytown in 2036, which is mostly countryside now, with the buildings below ground in great arcades that looks like Bauhaus Art Deco fantasies. Everyone is materially satisfied and walks around in Greco-Roman tunics with padded shoulders, and short-shorts. A giant space-gun is being built to carry man to the moon, but a wave of populist Luddite reaction erupts in fear at the scientist's restless challenge of ever-expanding frontiers. Inflamed by a demagogue, using television, the mob rushes the space-gun, but the young astronauts manage to take off in the nick of time, continuing man's boldly going where no man etc. etc., despite the fact that the entire population of Everytown is storming the facility, placing their lives at risk should the launch proceed. I imagine NASA would have put a hold on the countdown until the Army had cleared all those little blighters off the launch pad, but their leaders fire away, casualties be damned.
What is undeniable by the end is what a profoundly anti-democratic and elitist work this is. The idealized future is seen as a stark and incommodious world where people live underground under artificial light, dressing in spectacularly uncomfortable get-ups that even George Jetson would have trouble carrying off, and jetting about on little hover platforms servicing vast machines. The general populous are seen as either casualties, idiots, or an irrational mob. All enlightenment comes from the few who value the ideals of "engineering and mechanics," and, most importantly, material progress. This elite rules ideologically and autocratically, apparently resorting to the sedative "Gas of Peace" whenever the rabble get out of line. While being portrayed as wise rulers, their unyielding, materialist ideology and willingness to suppress the masses forcibly are not far removed from the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that sprouted everywhere in the 1930's.
What is most striking about any era is how often lines of thought run in parallel. Just as in our time, waves of bloody-minded religious reaction sweep through many countries, so in the 30's Russia lived a Stalinist nightmare, Germany, Italy and Spain gloried in Fascist fantasies, and the scientific intellectuals in the West toyed with notions of a techno-science elite ruling as philosopher kings. Of course, when the techno-elite were actually convened by government, they opened the Pandora's Box of nuclear weapons and promptly handed it to the bureaucrats. This film is important in the history of film, and also as an example of the occultly frightening dreams of intellectual elitists. It would be repeated in later films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, and the Star Wars series.
The film opens projecting four years into the future, to 1940, in "Everytown" that looks suspiciously like London. It's Christmas and the world stands at the brink of war. When hostilities break out, troops are mobilized, and we see an eerily prescient depiction of the bombing of the city with mass pandemonium and destruction. Thousands of planes cross the cliffs of Dover, poison gas rains from the sky.
The war drags on for ten and then twenty years. A plague appears, "The Wandering Sickness." By 1966, Everytown is a ruin, the few survivors scratching out a bare subsistence among the rubble. By 1970, the sickness has burned out and an autocratic subsistence society has emerged among the wreckage of the previous civilization. This is the first post- apocalyptic dystopian movie, with horse-drawn autos and airplanes grounded by lack of petrol, small scale warfare continuing on horseback and on foot.
Then from the sky descends a futuristic aircraft piloted by a former resident of the town, played by Raymond Massey. His flight-suit is ridiculous by our standards, but cutting-edge by 1930's criteria. He represents an alliance of the pre-war engineers and mechanics, "Wings Over the World," banded together to reclaim the world from brigandage. Massey waxes poetic in describing his group: "The Brotherhood of Efficiency!, The Freemasonry of Science!"--an end to bosses and the rule of civilization itself. Seeming to be the voice of Light and Order and Science, Massey still represents his own brand of well-intended authoritarianism, banning private ownership of airplanes and local autonomous authority independent of his group. "A conspiracy of bus drivers," as the local boss derisively describes them.
Of course the Old Order and the New Order come to blows, but it's no contest. A flotilla of tremendous futuristic airships, looking like Jack Northrop's B-35 Flying Wing, trundle overhead and the New Order, ironically, gases the town, not with poison but with a gentle sedative mist, "The Gas of Peace." The Old Order quietly euthanized, the New Order paratroops in and sets things aright. "And now for the rule of the air and a new life for mankind," Massey intones to a great fanfare.
On cannot help note, though, that the soldiers of "Wings Over the World," dress in snappy black suits that recall the sartorial flare of the SS. They speak in a dynamic verbiage that the Nazis could have related to. What follows is a montage of the rise of the new age, but its not a placid sight to contemporary eyes, with great machines drilling and excavating and exploding, generators whirring, assembly lines churning, people in futuristic jump suits careening about. It seems that everyone exists just to service machines, wearing isolation suits as if the environment were not entirely healthy.
Flash forward to Everytown in 2036, which is mostly countryside now, with the buildings below ground in great arcades that looks like Bauhaus Art Deco fantasies. Everyone is materially satisfied and walks around in Greco-Roman tunics with padded shoulders, and short-shorts. A giant space-gun is being built to carry man to the moon, but a wave of populist Luddite reaction erupts in fear at the scientist's restless challenge of ever-expanding frontiers. Inflamed by a demagogue, using television, the mob rushes the space-gun, but the young astronauts manage to take off in the nick of time, continuing man's boldly going where no man etc. etc., despite the fact that the entire population of Everytown is storming the facility, placing their lives at risk should the launch proceed. I imagine NASA would have put a hold on the countdown until the Army had cleared all those little blighters off the launch pad, but their leaders fire away, casualties be damned.
What is undeniable by the end is what a profoundly anti-democratic and elitist work this is. The idealized future is seen as a stark and incommodious world where people live underground under artificial light, dressing in spectacularly uncomfortable get-ups that even George Jetson would have trouble carrying off, and jetting about on little hover platforms servicing vast machines. The general populous are seen as either casualties, idiots, or an irrational mob. All enlightenment comes from the few who value the ideals of "engineering and mechanics," and, most importantly, material progress. This elite rules ideologically and autocratically, apparently resorting to the sedative "Gas of Peace" whenever the rabble get out of line. While being portrayed as wise rulers, their unyielding, materialist ideology and willingness to suppress the masses forcibly are not far removed from the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that sprouted everywhere in the 1930's.
What is most striking about any era is how often lines of thought run in parallel. Just as in our time, waves of bloody-minded religious reaction sweep through many countries, so in the 30's Russia lived a Stalinist nightmare, Germany, Italy and Spain gloried in Fascist fantasies, and the scientific intellectuals in the West toyed with notions of a techno-science elite ruling as philosopher kings. Of course, when the techno-elite were actually convened by government, they opened the Pandora's Box of nuclear weapons and promptly handed it to the bureaucrats. This film is important in the history of film, and also as an example of the occultly frightening dreams of intellectual elitists. It would be repeated in later films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, and the Star Wars series.
"Is it this? Or That? The Universe? or Nothingness?"
BaronBl00d17 February 2003
Powerful, yet creaky science fiction film from the 30's by the Korda clan. H. G. Wells's work is brought to the screen as a vision of what warfare will bring mankind in the century to follow. The film shows the destructive nature of war and how is will catapult us back to a state of barbarism, warlords, and another Black Death-like plague called the "wandering Sickness." However, because man clings to science, man will rise above all this and create a new, modern society free of warfare. The film has a lot of historical inaccuracies to its discredit NOW, yet much of what is preaches is plausible sometime, and much of it has some truth to it in some form. The theme that man can prevail and keep discovering/conquering new vistas is a laudable one. The film shows that progress and science are the things which advance us as a people. I thought of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged as I heard one of the characters say something to the effect that the scientists/inventors had formed their own civilization, free of corruption and violence. The pace of the film is somewhat tortoise-like at times, yet many scenes are very compelling. The set designs are outstanding in the futuristic world of 2036(where they valiantly try to put a rocket in space to make a preliminary orbit around the moon). Acting is good with Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke giving good performances, but it is Ralph Richardson as a "Boss" who deserves the most praise for giving a powerful performance of a man with inherent human traits that stymie progress. A though-provoking film indeed!
A Striking Futuristic Vision
strong-122-4788858 October 2011
I consider Things To Come (1936) essential viewing for anyone who's at all interested in the history of Science Fiction on celluloid.
Yes - At times Things To Come may be a bit slow and noticeably dated, but all is easily forgiven once the viewer is treated to the spectacle of its impressive "art deco" set designs and the awesome fleet of futuristic aircraft.
Global war takes place in 1940 where the battle is long, dragging on for decades. With nothing being manufactured anymore, society breaks down into primitive, localized communities.
Following a devastating plague in 1966, which almost wipes out everyone on the planet, slowly, but surely an organization called "Wings Over The World" is formed with the sole purpose of rebuilding civilization.
The year is now 2036 and we find the world's population now replenished (to some degree) with everyone living in vast underground cities of tall, gleaming towers and fantastic monorail transportation systems.
For its time, Things To Come is, in many ways, quite impressive. Its screenplay was written by H. G. Wells, which was adapted from his novel called The Shape Of Things To Come.
Yes - At times Things To Come may be a bit slow and noticeably dated, but all is easily forgiven once the viewer is treated to the spectacle of its impressive "art deco" set designs and the awesome fleet of futuristic aircraft.
Global war takes place in 1940 where the battle is long, dragging on for decades. With nothing being manufactured anymore, society breaks down into primitive, localized communities.
Following a devastating plague in 1966, which almost wipes out everyone on the planet, slowly, but surely an organization called "Wings Over The World" is formed with the sole purpose of rebuilding civilization.
The year is now 2036 and we find the world's population now replenished (to some degree) with everyone living in vast underground cities of tall, gleaming towers and fantastic monorail transportation systems.
For its time, Things To Come is, in many ways, quite impressive. Its screenplay was written by H. G. Wells, which was adapted from his novel called The Shape Of Things To Come.
Things to Come review.
Ben-Hibburd16 October 2017
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.
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.
As a Film...So-So....as Literature: It Reigns in the Heavens
arthur_tafero3 July 2019
This film is the king of the Over-Reach; of trying to bring more to the screen than is humanly possible considering what the author wrote and intended. Alex Korda was a giant among set designers. And there is absolutely no one in the entire field of Science-Fiction that even remotely approaches HG Wells as a writer.
Some of Well's works were merely outstanding; such as this and The First Men in the Moon, When Worlds Collide, and .others. But his classics like The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, and War of the Worlds were all in the Best Five Science-Fiction novels of all time. His book The Island of Dr. Moreau, is a top-ten horror classic of all time. The man was an absolute genius. The rating for this film is not for the acting or even the film itself; it is for the writing; the message within the film. The eternal square of politics, economics, science, and military adventurism is still with us to this very day, and will most likely be with us for the next several hundred years. Socialism vs Fascism vs Democracy, Capitalism vs Communism vs Two-Systems One Party, and Science vs God vs Common Sense are just a few of the minor questions addressed by Wells. "The Universe or Nothing".....just a small goal to strive for.
Some of Well's works were merely outstanding; such as this and The First Men in the Moon, When Worlds Collide, and .others. But his classics like The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, and War of the Worlds were all in the Best Five Science-Fiction novels of all time. His book The Island of Dr. Moreau, is a top-ten horror classic of all time. The man was an absolute genius. The rating for this film is not for the acting or even the film itself; it is for the writing; the message within the film. The eternal square of politics, economics, science, and military adventurism is still with us to this very day, and will most likely be with us for the next several hundred years. Socialism vs Fascism vs Democracy, Capitalism vs Communism vs Two-Systems One Party, and Science vs God vs Common Sense are just a few of the minor questions addressed by Wells. "The Universe or Nothing".....just a small goal to strive for.
Stylistically, a bit dated and melodramatic, but imaginative, sincere, and visually impressive
jamesrupert201412 May 2019
The film opens on Christmas, 1940 as "Everytown" (a somewhat simplistic metaphor) braces for war. Under the Xmas tree, the children's toys are all military themed (tanks, planes, cannon, etc). A grandfather marvels at the miniature weaponry and comments that perhaps "the new toys are a bit too much for them" (thus establishing early the film's anti-war stance). The bombs start falling and a war montage featuring futuristic-looking tanks and aircraft (neither very prophetic) and bio-weaponry, takes viewers to the blasted ruins of Everytown in the late 1960s, which is ruled by local warlord "The Chief" (Ralph Richardson, excellent in the role), who had earlier established his credentials as a pragmatic hard-case by gunning down plague victims. A supercilious John Cabal (Raymond Massy) arrives in a futuristic (for 1936) looking plane as a representative of "Wings Over the World", a group of technocrats who are reordering society to put an end to neo-barbarism (as represented by "The Chief"). Conveniently, the new order has a knockout gas, so they can bloodlessly takeover Everytown (in another heavy-handed metaphor, everyone awakens to a new world except "The Chief", who presumably cannot survive progressive social change). Another temporal montage takes us to 2036, were Cabal's grandson Oswald (Massy in a second role) presides over a technological utopia. Not everyone is happy with the obsessive focus on progress and Theotocopulos (Cedric Hardwicke) an erudite rabble-rouser fires up a mob of Luddites to attack the symbol of unlimited progress, the Space Cannon, the technology that would allow mankind to expand forever.
William Cameron Menzies' film is a bit heavy-handed and facile at times. There is an improbable and contrived scene where Cabal shoots down an enemy plane, lands beside the wreck and watches the enemy pilot live long enough to give his gas mask to a little girl, regret his actions, and ponder on the irony of killing the kid's family by dropping gas bombs, then sacrificing his life by giving her the mask. Not surprisingly given the cast, the acting is very good in a stagy, Shakespearian way, with many portentous or melodramatic speeches given in authoritative and stentorian British accents. Massy (especially in his second role) especially is given to rhetorical flourishes and uttering every line like it's a great truism.
The film is very much a paean to technology, with Cabal I and his "engineers and mechanics" rebuilding the shattered world into a technological utopia. Post-war images show massive digging machines hollowing out the mountain for a new subterranean Everytown followed by a lengthy, silent, documentary-like tour thorough massive manufacturing and power plants (these sequences are imaginative and well-made but go on far too long). The ultimate wonder is the 'space cannon' that will send people to the moon. The enormous gun sounds like an electromagnetic catapult (perhaps similar to a modern 'rail gun') - more sophisticated than Verne's explosive-fuelled cannon in "From Earth to the Moon", but still an impossible mode of space-travel (the acceleration to escape velocity would crush the passengers before they exit the barrel and then aerodynamic heating at Mach 33 would incinerate the resulting puree). Presumably for dramatic effect, any residual 'realism' in Cabal's nascent space-program is abandoned when the crew for the first trip to the moon (the future puree) is chosen and then appears to leave with no preparation or training. Other than the space gun, some of the technology is prophetic, especially the use of huge visual screens to address the multitudes.
The film, which is one of the genre's first 'spectaculars', reflects H.G. Well's utopian view of progress (the author insisted that the film be a counterpoint to Fritz Lang's dystopic 'Metropolis' (1927)). The vision is impressive even if the film itself is a bit clunky and is perhaps best viewed as a futurist parable than as 'hard' science fiction. Arthur Bliss' score is excellent (the soundtrack was one of the first released commercially).
A foundation of the genre to come
mim-812 September 2010
"Things to come" along with "Metropolis" is the must have for any Sci-Fi buff, representing the foundation of this genre, that is to flourish in 50's and 70's, with ideas and effects that originated in these two films, which set the marker in Science Fiction to this day. "Things to come" is a product of it's age, and can't be judged nor compared to later productions in acting, narrative or filming. However it is one of the most futuristic movies of all times, since it predicted many events of the near and far future, such as World War II and the way it will be fought, that only German military in those days was prepared for, globalization in the shape of scientific community called Wings Over the World that is imposing it's rule to indigent and retrograde nations that are "not in sync" with world order (like John Cabal said to The Boss, "we don't approve of sovereign and independent countries"), technical achievements of the future (LCD screens and architecture, which for the truth of the matter came earlier than 2036, but still..), use of helicopters which in 1936 were only experimental aircraft, and general opinion that the scientific progress is in reverse equation to human happiness.
H.G. Wells was dreamer and a prophet of Jules Verne size, and his dreams are put to the screen many times, but very few of them carry the look and the feel of "Things to come", if you love Science Fiction this is an alphabet movie. I also recommend seeing the colorized version, beautifully put together under supervision of famous effects man, Ray Harryhausen.
H.G. Wells was dreamer and a prophet of Jules Verne size, and his dreams are put to the screen many times, but very few of them carry the look and the feel of "Things to come", if you love Science Fiction this is an alphabet movie. I also recommend seeing the colorized version, beautifully put together under supervision of famous effects man, Ray Harryhausen.
A classic sci-fi film, albeit a bit rough around the edges
rickabbo1 December 2005
Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.
This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.
Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once.
This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.
Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once.
New World Order
johnflorencesullivan27 September 2021
Creepy film that shows how Judeo-Christian values will be destroyed (Christmas scene in beginning represents old order, as does the charming, human-scaled small towns destroyed by war and plague) to be replaced by a ruthless technocracy called "progress" by detractors, but in actuality is a new world order where human kindness, comforts, and simple pleasures are replaced by gross conformity and a small-dick preoccupation with reaching the stars, even if it means the end of human natural life. Crowds of tiny humans (useless eaters) swarm the phallic jet that symbolizes the absolute primacy of the New World Order. This is the 1936 version of Klaus Schwab's "zu vill eat ze bugs unt zu vill like it." Note that Klaus Schwab actually has worn a costume that mimics that of cold-blooded space explorer Raymond Massey.
Often Lyrical, Logical and Beautiful On its Own Terms; a Classic of Ideas
silverscreen88816 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This early sci-fi masterwork by Herbert George Wells with music by Arthur Bliss is a powerful piece of film-making. Adapted from Wells' somewhat different work by the author, it presents a look at the human future with the subject of periods of war as versus periods of 'peace'. The structure is that after a contrasted-pair of episodes of normalcy and gathering clouds of war, the script allows the war to happen. Two families, the Cabells and the Passworthys disagree about what may happen; Passworthy takes a hopeful view of civilization's "automatic" progress; Cabell is the thinker, the doubter. Their city Everytown--obviously London-- becomes wrecked by a war featuring tanks, a magnificent war march by Bliss, and the end of civilization. The second portion finds people living in the wreckage of what had been the city under a "Boss", played with bravura by Ralph Richardson, whose woman, lovely Margaretta Scott, is as fascinating a dreamer as he is a concrete-bound dictator type. He is trying to rebuild old WWI airplanes so he can attack a nearby hill tribe to complete his petty kingdom; a young scientist complains about having his work continually interrupted demands for planes--etc.--everlastingly; this is Wells' comment on war versus progress. The survivors are subject to a plague called "The Wandering Sickness" also. Enter a modern flying machine piloted by the Cabell of the first section of the film, now part of Wings Over the World, an International Scientists' Coalition, who are planning to end warfare forever. This flight-suited modernist has fascinating conversations with the Boss and his woman, their attraction being evident; then Boss sends up his aircraft against them, the Scientists come with huge numbers of planes and drop the "Gas of Peace" onto the ruins of Everytown. Only the Boss dies, fighting too hard against the pacifying. The film then shows ore being mined and by slow steps being made into the girders of a magnificent new futuristic city of towers. In section three, a future Cabell argues with a future Passworthy over the morality of human science. Passworthy wonders if they have a right to send men to the Moon; Cabell champions man's right to advancement and the need to expand his horizons. The son of Passworthy and Cabell's daughter, are the astronauts being sent. Theotocopulos, a religious-minded Luddite, makes a fiery speech on a huge screen in the city's Forum and leads an attack on the 'space gun' that is to fire the new rocket free of Earth's gravity. The climax of the plot is the firing of the space gun successfully; the denouement and ending is a speech by Cabell praising worth and science that is universally considered to be the most profound defense of the mind ever penned. "It is all the universe--or nothing!" Cabell tells Passworthy. "Which shall it be?" As Cabell, Raymond Massey gives perhaps his greatest screen performance; he is thoughtful, compassionate, and reasonable, a true scientist. As the rabble-rouser who wants to end the Age of Science, Cedric Hardwicke is perfect and powerful. Edward Chapman playing Passworthy does admirably impersonating the voice of convention and fear. The storyline is logical, frequently beautiful and always interesting. Given the near-extinction of mankind, the idea of a civilization run by rebuilder scientists is rendered plausible and credible to the viewer. This is a triumph for the director, William Cameron Menzies, for Bliss and for all concerned. Listen to the dialogue with someone you love; within its constructed limits, this is a thinking man's drama debating two possible human futures--progress or its reactionary opposite.
And they were saved by SCIENCE !
dsewizzrd-123 May 2010
Based loosely on H. G. Wells' astonishingly dull monograph, this gloriously awful film made before the War portends the future.
After a devastating war with the Germans, the world is broken down to a post-apocalyptic state, eventually brought back to civilisation by the 'Airmen' and their wonderfully impossible Art Deco air machines.
The scenes then switch to the future in 2036, where the population lives in a Grecian idyll (?!) in large blocks of flats with no windows and they have managed to invent flat screen televisions only 70 years after Sir Clive Sinclair.
A plan to send to send a couple to the moon in a 'space gun' (how they can get back is not explained) is opposed by a noisy senator and the population rebels against the gun for unspecified reasons. Despite the lovely if shaky effects and models, the film drags on it bits and the bits taken from H. G. Wells are terminally dull and preachy.
After a devastating war with the Germans, the world is broken down to a post-apocalyptic state, eventually brought back to civilisation by the 'Airmen' and their wonderfully impossible Art Deco air machines.
The scenes then switch to the future in 2036, where the population lives in a Grecian idyll (?!) in large blocks of flats with no windows and they have managed to invent flat screen televisions only 70 years after Sir Clive Sinclair.
A plan to send to send a couple to the moon in a 'space gun' (how they can get back is not explained) is opposed by a noisy senator and the population rebels against the gun for unspecified reasons. Despite the lovely if shaky effects and models, the film drags on it bits and the bits taken from H. G. Wells are terminally dull and preachy.
"The universe or nothing. Which will it be?"
rmax30482326 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The fantasy about the evolution of Western Civilization over the course of several generations, beginning in 1936. England seems to be at peace. Then, out of nowhere, a ruinous war that wrecks everything, followed by an epidemic that, like the Black Death, winnows the population.
As the disease dissipates, we're taken to Everytown in England, now run by a pompous dictator, Ralph Richardson, who is making war against "the hill people." There is no petrol, no medicine, no chemists, no books, no nothing, except there seem to be plenty of weapons and bullets.
Into this raggedy populace comes aviator Raymond Massey. He lands in town, claiming that he represents an organization call Wings Over the World. Richardson, sneering but wary, promptly puts him in a dungeon and disregards Massey's warning -- "Others know where I am and they will come." Well, they DO come apace. A fleet of large black multi-engine airplanes with open decks like the cruise ships of yore. They brush away the obsolete local air defense and drop "peace gas." It knocks everybody out but kills no one.
Wings Over the World brings prosperity to the people of England. Cities are rebuilt, there is plenty of food, and science charges ahead. Soon, the society, now led by Massey's grandson, is ready to shoot a young couple to the moon. After that? Who knows.
Enter one of the artisans who has constructed the great Cretanesque marble statues of Everytown and Everywhere, Sir Cedric Hardwicke. He's disturbed by this notion of Science with a capital S. Let's stop this nonsense and go back to the old days. Weren't we just as happy then? And this space business. Ridiculous.
Maybe H. G. Welles had just digested Hegel or something. Every time there is an idea, it generates its own opposition. From Ralph Richardson's blind opposition to progress, we move to Hardwicke's opposition to blind progress.
Hardwicke musters his troops and they charge the "electric gun" which is about to SHOOT a bullet with a couple of people in it to the moon. KaBoom.
Science, in the person of one of Raymond Massey's avatars, wins. He stands with a pal in an observatory, pointing out the magic bullet on its way to a lunar landing, smiling and satisfied. We can never go back to the ways of yesteryear. "The universe or nothing. Which will it be?" Compared to Welles, I consider myself a mental midget but it seems to me he's a little confused here. Science, as I know it, endorses no values except scientific integrity. It's a useful tool for finding out things, but it doesn't tell you what to find out, or what to do with what you find out. Yes, Darwin was a scientist but so was Lysenko. Alfred Nobel, a man of peace, invented dynamite, a weapon he thought so destructive that it would put an end to war. Science makes progress of a certain kind possible, but if we want to decide what KIND of progress, we have to look elsewhere, into the more arguable corners of philosophy.
Speaking of that, Welles, and the film based on his story, bring up a lot of social issues for at least a brief treatment, but religion is nowhere to be seen. That's Welles for you.
As the disease dissipates, we're taken to Everytown in England, now run by a pompous dictator, Ralph Richardson, who is making war against "the hill people." There is no petrol, no medicine, no chemists, no books, no nothing, except there seem to be plenty of weapons and bullets.
Into this raggedy populace comes aviator Raymond Massey. He lands in town, claiming that he represents an organization call Wings Over the World. Richardson, sneering but wary, promptly puts him in a dungeon and disregards Massey's warning -- "Others know where I am and they will come." Well, they DO come apace. A fleet of large black multi-engine airplanes with open decks like the cruise ships of yore. They brush away the obsolete local air defense and drop "peace gas." It knocks everybody out but kills no one.
Wings Over the World brings prosperity to the people of England. Cities are rebuilt, there is plenty of food, and science charges ahead. Soon, the society, now led by Massey's grandson, is ready to shoot a young couple to the moon. After that? Who knows.
Enter one of the artisans who has constructed the great Cretanesque marble statues of Everytown and Everywhere, Sir Cedric Hardwicke. He's disturbed by this notion of Science with a capital S. Let's stop this nonsense and go back to the old days. Weren't we just as happy then? And this space business. Ridiculous.
Maybe H. G. Welles had just digested Hegel or something. Every time there is an idea, it generates its own opposition. From Ralph Richardson's blind opposition to progress, we move to Hardwicke's opposition to blind progress.
Hardwicke musters his troops and they charge the "electric gun" which is about to SHOOT a bullet with a couple of people in it to the moon. KaBoom.
Science, in the person of one of Raymond Massey's avatars, wins. He stands with a pal in an observatory, pointing out the magic bullet on its way to a lunar landing, smiling and satisfied. We can never go back to the ways of yesteryear. "The universe or nothing. Which will it be?" Compared to Welles, I consider myself a mental midget but it seems to me he's a little confused here. Science, as I know it, endorses no values except scientific integrity. It's a useful tool for finding out things, but it doesn't tell you what to find out, or what to do with what you find out. Yes, Darwin was a scientist but so was Lysenko. Alfred Nobel, a man of peace, invented dynamite, a weapon he thought so destructive that it would put an end to war. Science makes progress of a certain kind possible, but if we want to decide what KIND of progress, we have to look elsewhere, into the more arguable corners of philosophy.
Speaking of that, Welles, and the film based on his story, bring up a lot of social issues for at least a brief treatment, but religion is nowhere to be seen. That's Welles for you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
