The Shape of Things to Come (1979) User Reviews

Total dud

[DavidParis · 2/10 · 18 August 2005]

With the names Jack Palance and Carol Lynley above the title, you would think that The Shape of Things to Come (purportedly from the book by HG Wells, although I see little similarity) would be a sci-fi adventure to die for.

Well, it is...after watching this for half an hour you realise that yes, you have actually died and gone to hell. The special effects are below average for their time and the cast performs VERY badly. Palance has some interesting moments playing one of his typical evil characters but on the whole is fairly bland. As for Carol Lynley, who I usually adore, Niki is by far her worst performance, mainly due to her monosyllabic delivery.

However there are some laugh-out loud moments (unintentional), mainly caused by the cast's feigned fear of the "robots" which are obviously stunt men in cardboard looking costumes who look about as fearsome as a newborn.

Don't waste your time with this tripe, watch Star Wars instead.

Trash to Come

[Tweetienator · 4/10 · 4 December 2021]

The Shape of Things to Come is for sure a bad movie, with mostly bad acting, low budget and so on. But if you got strong nerves (hardened by watching a lot of trash movies and shows) you will find short moments of entertainment and fun. Only recommended for those chosen ones who want to watch every sci-fi movie on this planet before entering the next level of existence and who want to test the strength of their nerves.

The worst sci-fi film I have seen in a movie-theatre

[pvd007 · 2/10 · 15 September 1999]

This film was released in Swiss theatres in 1979. It is probably the worst film I have ever seen in a movie theatre. Terrible story, bad acting, even worse special effects. I have voted on 1718 films in the IMDb and I have given TSoTtC a 2 out of 10 (there are worse films that have been released to video only, like OCTAMAN for example for which I voted with a straight 1 out of 10)

At least Carol Lynley looks nice.

[mbeswick99 · 5 February 2004]

If this is the shape of things to come, thank God you live in the 21st Century. This film is perfect for spoofing. Notably bad moments - when the Starstreaker spaceship hits top speed. This is represented by having the cheap model ship veer from the left to the right (while still appearing to be stationary), a slight increase in noise and by having the actors look awed. One of the least impressive effects I have ever seen. The villain's death is worth waiting for too. Resigned to his fate, Palance sits in his chair and waits for the planet to explode around him. During this cataclysmic moment a large piece of ceiling falls on his head. Instead of braining him as you might expect it simply bounces off. Palance looks as surprised as everyone else. Oh, and those robots.....oh dear!

Things that Came and Went...Space:1979

[zillabob · 1/10 · 7 May 2007]

Makes a great double feature of bad films paired with Space Mutiny(1988)or Starship Invasions(1977). I remember there being some hype for this film in Starlog and other genre mags of the time, and that Barry Morse was headlining it(along with Jack Palance and Carol Lynley) and that Sylvia Anderson(Space:1999, UFO) was producing it and involved in aspects of the design. Well, Anderson walked early on, signing herself off it, but not after signing on Barry Morse from her Space:1999 haunts, to star in this. The film was to be made in Canada and, to feature some "top line" visual effects and miniatures by Brick Price.It's ghastly from the get-go. A disco-inspired theme song opening the show(this was 1979) and we go to a moon base which just happens to be a futuristic(then)office building outside of Toronto and we're told in that casual, expository way, that the "earth-like" conditions outside the windows, complete with clouds and trees, are all inside a dome with a "sunsphere" providing a familiar view for the people inside. How convenient. Barry Morse puts on an American accent for this, not his familiar grandfatherly British accent. Jack Palance plays "Omus" an evil kind of guy(he played the same kind of "evil guy" in an episode of Buck Rogers about the same time) who has these walking-garbage can robots who look totally ridiculous and awkward. He also laughs, for no apparent reason only that he's amazed himself, which isn't hard. All of the costumes of the young people look like they just roller boogied to the moon. The same corridor is used again and again for "chase" scenes-they just change directions. The miniatures are pretty bad-fighters that have model parts of the "K-7 Space Station" on the front end. The FX work is largely some glitzy animation that's passable at first, but just gets more annoying. Landing on another planet, it looks just like some empty lot or tract of land in Canada. Supposedly this was to be a much more ambitious production, with Mike Trim having done some production drawings and miniatures made in England-that all went when Sylvia Anderson walked off it. In fact, that's what Morse was led to believe when he signed on. (I read where he said he was taken aback at the cheapness of everything, but honored his professional commitment and did his job and finished it, as he agreed to do.) Harry Allan Towers (no slouch at cheap films)came in and the quality was replaced by the thrift of just getting the film done. I admit I was pretty shocked it was so low-budget. I'd accepted that it was a Canadian film, for the time, and figured it would be lower end, but this took the cake.

You do have to be pretty forgiving with this one.

[Hey_Sweden · 5/10 · 11 September 2016]

"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.

Spread That Cheese Like You Owe Me Some Money

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 7 June 2016]

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.

Brainless Dribble

[oigres · 1/10 · 8 March 2002]

I too, saw this excuse for a movie in theaters expecting it to be a remake of the 1936 classic. Talk about major lunch-bag let down! The only worth while event of sitting through this insult was listening to the wise-cracks and jocularities coming from the audience. Watching Barry Morse (a fine actor) humiliate himself with contortionistic facial expressions related to an attack of hemorrhoids was laughable! Jack Palance(another fine actor)didn't fair any better with his army of robots looking like walking garbage cans! All in all a complete waste of time. Possibly twenty years from now this might become a cult classic or mercifully disappear out of cinematic history!

The worst film I ever saw in a cinema

[twoshedsmcginty · 1/10 · 18 May 2007]

A sinful waste of good actors. I saw this with my father in 1979 and we agreed then that it was the worst film we had ever seen. We have not changed our opinions since.

The airfix special effects, the purple blood, the attempt to circumvent zero-budget production-design with cheap sci-fi chicanery in the dialogue....above all the JUMP TO HYPERSPACE! ...in which a plastic model continues to pass tortoise-like in front of a black curtain with a few holes representing stars at exactly the same speed it was doing before.

Tear out your eyes before buying this, you'll be happier.

So this doesn't actually have anything to do with the novel?

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 24 October 2012]

I had never known that H.G. Wells wrote a novel called "The Shape of Things to Come" until I saw the 1979 movie. Having seen the movie, I did a little research and found that the movie had practically nothing in common with the novel. It sounds as though the novel had a plot similar to "Nineteen Eighty-Four", and the 1936 version of the movie followed the novel more closely.

Looking at the movie on its own, it's pretty fun if totally silly. Jack Palance seems to be having a lot of fun as the man threatening to attack the moon colony. The robots - both good ones and bad ones - are the movie's particularly corny aspect. The whole thing comes across as a big excuse to be goofy, and so you'll probably enjoy the movie a lot more if you just accept it as ridiculous entertainment.

Well(s); it could have been worse.

[hindsonevansmike · 5/10 · 20 July 2023]

I am moved to pick up on the review filed by "Brainless Dribble" in March of 2002. That review suggested "well, maybe in 20 years it will be better".

NOPE!

Apart from watching the heroine running through a mine in two-inch heels (nicely balanced by the way) this 1970s embarrassment is just as bad as it was when I first saw it (on first cinematic release) in late1979.

The old adage about "there goes two hours of my life that I won't get back" might have been written for this drivel.

Apparently, the film production went down the pan when Sylvia Anderson (yes, her!) pulled out, having tempted Barry Morse to join the crew; to his credit, he apparently honoured his contract, as did Palance. So, let's not blame "the talent".

Might be worth trying this - as the midnight broadcast in the Clinic for People who have trouble falling aslee...... zzzzzzzz.

Lost gem for OG Sci Fi geeks of the 70's!

[peacedrumbrook · 10/10 · 3 December 2009]

If you were a kid in the seventies and loved Star Wars and the cheesy derivative clones it inspired, from 'Jason of Star Command' to 'Galactica', then this is for you. Of the bigger Star Wars-inspired space fantasies of the era, 'Shape of Things to Come' may have the most most in common with 1979-1981's 'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century' movie and TV series. Though Buck's budget had the advantage, the overall look is quite similar. The cheesy "futuristic" art design, materials and props that were available and may have looked 'far-out' to the 1980 eye are all in place. The lead actress has Erin Gray's 'Wilma Deering' hairdo, and, hey, there's Jack Palance, who played an evil villain in a Buck Rogers 2-parter, playing, well, a evil villain, in a, well, very similar costume. Having Barry Morse from the popular 70's British show 'Space:1999' also thrown in makes for good measure. There's the oh-so-imitated renegade robot, with his domed head and oddly 'Robby the Robot'-esquire body. He's the comic relief. Noting a theme? It's the era. Appreciation of this film is probably purely generational, because the movie is BAD. But it has immense charm. Watching this for the first time in 2009, at age 41, I felt as if I were watching a perfect spoof of the genre I am so nostalgic for.

• Brooke Ellis

Doctor Logan Rogers Battlestar Beyond The Space Wars: 1999

[DoctorThotcer · 6/10 · 15 October 2023]

What a wonderful mess of derivation.

If you like so bad it's good sci-fi then look no further, this has everything. Quasi futuristic 70's fashion, clunky over-acting robots, wobbly space ships, cardboard sets, talking computers that run on reel to reel tapes, bland corridors to run down from multiple camera angles and disco synthesiser tunes so loud that they drown out the dialogue.

The story is paper thin, multiple times some poorly constructed plot point or threat gets hand waved away for the sakes of moving things along, there are long scenes of effects beyond reason or explanation, and apparently hairspray is everywhere in this universe.

Still, if this had come on TV when I was a child, I would have loved it.

Marvellously terrible.

So bad it could be a cult classic

[rolfmp · 1/10 · 22 April 2004]

This should be in the top 100 worst movies of all time. Like many cult classics it improves with age as its unintentional hilarity increases with time. I saw Shape of Things to Come on opening night without the benefit of any advance reviews. At the time I felt that my hard earned part-time summer job savings had never been so wasted. However, now I split a gut in Plan 9 fashion with the added benefit of fast forward. Only if bad SciFi amuses you should you give this a try. The special effects are stunningly bad at times. Palance and Lynley mail in their performances (and for Lynley, think worse than Poseidon Adventure - yikes!). I don't know if this was ever on Mystery Science Theater 3000; but that would be the perfect venue for viewing this space junk.

What The?!

[tmsindc-2 · 15 June 2001]

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"

"I believe we've been through time dilation"

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 4/10 · 21 May 2022]

After viewing the film I thought, that seems like a television pilot and subsequently learned that apparently a series had been considered before it was changed to a feature film. It's not an engaging film and the two best characters were dead by the end, Dr. John Caball played with dignity by Barry Morse and Omus played with no dignity by Jack Palance, though both actors were at least watchable. It also had the beauteous Carol Lynley as Nikki who unfortunately wasn't in it that much. The main story was carried by younger actors Anne-Marie Martin as Kim and Nicholas Campbell as Jason who were rather boring. As for the robot 'Sparks', the less said the better. The low budget didn't help, particularly with the visuals apart from a couple of good looking space craft. The movie lacked any excitement and attempts to inject a sense of wonder fell flat.

There was a scene where the newly repaired robot 'Sparks' demonstrated he could teleport from one place to another and it was treated like it was a party trick! No one was impressed or asked how or even thought it might be a useful thing to know. That was a trifle bizarre.

They weren't even trying with this Star Wars wannabe...

[Aaron1375 · 1/10 · 28 June 2020]

Everyone knows that after Star Wars was such a success there were many attempts to try to duplicate its success. Disney tried with their film, The Black Hole, Roger Corman made several and even James Bond was sent into space with Moonraker. Some of these films were silly and some were pretty good. The Shape of Things to Come was downright dull and lazy. They apparently thought attaching H.G. Wells name to it and having a title to one of his writings would win people over; unfortunately, they didn't really bother with any of the story.

The movie starts out with humanity on the moon in a dome where two old codgers discuss the need for a military right before a huge ship is sent crashing into said dome leaving massive damage that we only see very little off. Jack Palance is once again the evil force we must stop on his planet where they make this drug that somehow can stop radiation or something. A group commandeers a ship because stopping this guy is not a priority and the old man is irradiated for reasons unknown because it added nothing to the plot. He, his son, a girl and a suicide robot blast off and are in space for a bit before their ship needs repairs so they set down on earth...what!?! You've been flying all this time and earth is where you're setting down and you blasted off from the moon!?! Ship's not very fast now is it? On the earth they discover irradiated children that they promise they will bring back medicine before flying and discussing books and coming across a strange thing that makes the crew trip out! Finally they arrive on the bad guy planet, though not sure how considering how slow the ship is, but once you're on the planet you can see they are in the exact same place where those children were found...

Jack Palance was in some really terrible films, usually playing a bad guy and generally playing someone younger than what he was. Here his old mentor is probably his age just like in Hawk the Slayer he was about the same age as the guy playing his father. I understand needing a paycheck, but go over to Italy or something and do some of their films, more fun and you might not get bonked on the head with a beam like happened in this film!

So this film is quite bad as there is very little action and most of the film is just pushing buttons and such. The fight with the robots consisted of humans getting bashed in the head with rocks and thrown against walls because no budget for fancy space weapons here! We get the same locales throughout too as like I said the earth scene with the kids was clearly used in the scenes of the evil guy's planet. Give me a Corman film with less budget any day, I guarantee it is going to be more entertaining than this!

Trashy and occasionally nonsensical

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 16 August 2017]

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME is a Canadian version of the famous H.G. Wells novel, although other than mankind colonising the Moon it seems to have little to do with that book. Instead it's a cheap and cheesy space opera, one of dozens rushed out in the wake of STAR WARS, and in terms of enjoyability, this can only be classed as so-bad-it's-good entertainment. A bunch of wooden actors work their way through cardboard sets and scenery while cheesy models stand in for space flight and the like. There are dumb robots ripped off from FORBIDDEN PLANET's Robbie and Jack Palance chewing the scenery in his own inimitable way as the villain of the piece. At least 'guest stars' Barry Morse and John Ireland have the grace to look embarrassed by their presence in this trashy, heavily dated production.

Lame Central

[Troy-Tempest · 1/10 · 5 November 2021]

I'll make it brief, do yourself a favour by reading the book and watching the 1936 original. I love Jack Palance but he must have really needed the money to do this.

Canadian B

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 13 December 2023]

New Washington is a thriving city colony on the moon after the Robot Wars devastated Earth. A robot crashes a supply ship into the city. In the aftermath, Omus (Jack Palance) the Robot Master of Delta 3 and self-proclaim emperer offers to rule the moon as well. Jason Caball (Nicholas Campbell), his father Dr. John Caball (Barry Morse), and Kim Smedley (Anne-Marie Martin) fly the untested experimental Starstreak on an unsanctioned mission to Delta 3 where former governor Nikki (Carol Lynley) leads a resistance group.

It's a Canadian sci-fi of dubious quality. It's bad robots. It's bad sets. It's miniatures. It does have Jack Palance doing some over-acting. This reminds me more Buck Rogers on TV with less money. It's pretty bad although not the worst. Some of it is watchable. I do like some of the real locations being used. The writing is messy sci-fi. It's pure B-movie stuff. One can really make fun of this for its camp.

So Bad. Only Watched for Carol Lynley.

[lonzo95-940-300272 · 2/10 · 26 December 2021]

I will give this movie 1 star for Carol Lynley, one of Hollywood's most beautiful women back in the day. Still beautiful in this one, but she's not even in most of it. Another half star for Ann Marie Martin, another beauty.

This movie is so bad. Cheap and cringe worthy sets and special effects. Pathetic killer robots. Lots of fast forwarding. I was expecting something related to the 1930s sci-fi classic. Not. At. All.

So I'll round up to 2 stars. I watched the credits roll at the end and saw the names of those involved in making this hopeless Star Wars wannabe and thought "I hope they got paid well."

Too Bad to Even be a Cult Classic

[kevinjmiller-71539 · 2/10 · 18 April 2020]

Gave it 2 stars 'cause Carol Lynley and Anne-Marie Martin don't look half bad in the costumes.

I cannot imagine paying to see this in a theater. Awful special effects, wooden acting, and a simplistic plot full of non-sequiturs and dead ends. Looks like a 1959 sci-fi film that might have worked if they'd gone with the look and done it it black and white.

Not a Star Wars rip off!!!!!!

[moosebaker-75035 · 10/10 · 26 April 2021]

First, I have to start out with how over used the term Star Wars rip off is thrown around. Not every science fiction film that uses space conflict as it's story plot means it's attempting to rip off Star Wars. This film is an absolute joy for fans of Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who and Logans Run. If you enjoy Roger Cormans science fiction films Battle Beyond the Stars or Space Raiders, then you will enjoy this movie. If your a fan of Stuart Gordans Robotjox, you will enjoy this movie. If your coming into this thinking it's going to be based off H. G. Wells novel, then you will be disappointed. It is not, it just borrows the title. The acting is on point, the effects for 70s sci fi fans is on point. Yes if you can only enjoy Star Wars then you will be disappointed. But in no way does this film deserve such a poor rating.

Ah, such awful crap! How can you NOT love it!

[hetoreyn · 1/10 · 3 April 2015]

Yeah I know .. this film hits the fan pretty hard an spray's its cinematic excrement all around as it starts with what looks like a promising beginning (it's what it's promising i didn't like :P).

The opening theme is ballsy enough and all to the visual of a big explosion. Should be good right?

The start of the film actually looks like it'll be pretty sweet but very quickly you get to understand that this film is going to hurt. DEEEEEP HURTING!!

Lazy script writing, bone headed plot devices, boring performances. It's pretty clear that the biggest problem here is that no one .. not the actors, not the crew .. and certainly not he script writer .. knew what film they were trying to make. Everyone's trying pretty hard to look sincere but this was a story that needed about $40,000,000 to tell, and not $3,000,000.

Lets look at the good points:

Cinematography and editing is pretty solid. At least the camera crew knew what they were doing, and the editor definitely did his best with the material provided.

At least there's some familiar faces even if they're not utilized any where near their potential.

Ermm ... I guess that's it :P I gotta admit personally I LOVED the music score. It's hard to discern why, it's just got something that I like. I've seen a lot of B movies and most suffer from mediocre music score .. whereas this one I just enjoy listening to that crazy title theme.

Bottom Line .. this movie is f***ing awful, but it's one of those kinds of movies you'll love if you're a nut for B movies. It's soon bad that it's positively good. As someone else suggested .. it should be a cult classic for being bad. It's still not as bad as anything that Bert I. Gordon .. or Colman Francis made. And this film totally should have been riffed by MST3K .. I guess the only reason it wasn't was because of licensing rights.

You won't be missing anything if you skip this title. But it's awesome for a crap-fest.

So bad you wonder what they were thinking

[Wendel-2 · 23 January 2003]

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."