El mundo que viene

"The Shape of Things to Come" is the second screen adaptation of the H.G. Welles story, after the 1936 film "Things to Come". It stars a few veterans (Jack Palance, John Ireland, Barry Morse, Carol Lynley) and two Canadians who were then up-and-comers: Nicholas Campbell ('Da Vinci's Inquest') and Anne-Marie Martin ("Prom Night" 1980). Bright young Jason (Campbell) and his scientist father (Morse) venture into space with Kim (Martin), the daughter of a senator (Ireland), in a future setting where robot wars have decimated Planet Earth and humans live in colonies on the moon. Their self-appointed mission is to throw a monkey wrench into the plans of nefarious villain Omus (Palance), a power hungry would-be dictator who once studied under Morse.

This one does seem to be mostly disliked, and the reason why is clear early on. This was obviously done on a limited budget, and the filmmaking (direction by Canadian born George McCowan, "Frogs") definitely lacks distinction. This is admittedly minor league fare with low grade effects, and is an unmemorable adaptation of the story, but this viewer found it impossible to actively hate it. It's all appealing enough, ultra cheap effects and all. Even the robot characters, as extremely clunky looking as they are, are endearing in a hearkening- back-to-sci fi-B-pictures-of-the-50s sort of way. The main robot character "Sparks", voiced by Greg Swanson and performed by Mark Parr, is endearing.

Palance and Ireland are just picking up paychecks here. Both Lynley and Martin are simply gorgeous. Martin and Campbell are very sincere and likable. Morse has more to work with than his other veteran co-stars and gives the best performance in the movie.

If you're a die hard science fiction buff, you may want to see it for completions' sake.

Five out of 10.

A sci-fic movie that is both loved and hated by the public.

Okay, if you go into this expecting something that even comes close to the magic of Things To Come (1936) - you will hate it! This is basically a mix of two 70s TV shows titled Space 1999 and Doctor Who. In fact, the production values very much look like a TV show rather than a movie.

This is the sort of movie you might wish to return to with repeat viewings as the whole cast (main cast, support cast) have great appeal. There is even a moment where a robot takes a weird liking to a cute female cast member - enough said. I think there is a Luke Skywalker-type young guy here? Jack Palance and Barry Morse are outstanding as always.

The story has several holes in it (as did Space 1999) but the name of the game is to just have fun and don't think about the lack of logic in the thing.

Like many here, I have a huge respect for the Things to Come (1936) movie but if you totally forget that film, and view "Shape" as something totally different (despite the title), you might just like it.

Absolutely Awful! This movie has nothing in common with the 1936 classic movie with a similar title. I wonder what the "pitch" was like, "Let's remake one of the most important early science fiction movies written by of the great early science fiction writers.....but we are going to change everything but the title." Think of it as "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" remade and set in metropolitan Chicago about a young advertising executive, his hectic life, and a loveable dog named "Nemo"

In the future, human race sets up colonies on the Moon, when Earth becomes uninhabitable. A madman decides to destroy the Moon colonies with his robots and automated ships and only three people and their robot dog can stop him.

Wow. In the future, the world will be threatened by a cheesy-dialogue Jack Palance in a stupid cape! Who can save us? Awful robots so dumb they couldn't even get a job on "Battlestar Galactica"? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Thanks to Blue Underground, you can see this film in the finest quality possible. Now, there is nothing they can do to make the movie any better, but at least it will look and sound good while you make fun of it.

The problem with having a legitimate name, like H.G. Wells, is that some people use it to make their work seem legitimate. That is the case with this film. It has nothing to do with the Wells story, and has little story of its own to recommend it.

It does have legitimate actors in it and that is what is confusing. Why Oscar winner Jack Palance, and Carol Lynley, of Poseidon Adventure fame, would agree to even read for this movie is beyond understanding. It must have been a lost bet or a tax write off of some sort.

Now please understand, I like bad Sfi-Fi movies. I will even recommend "The Giant Claw" just for the silly puppet bird monster. I saw this film, in a theater, on Christmas Eve, when the doorman was feeling in the spirit and let us in for free. It still was not worth the money.

Remember, you do not get time wasted back at the end of your life. Do not waste the time seeing this "film."