Delta III - Wir wollen nicht zur Erde zurück

"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.

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.

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."

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.

What's most striking about this hilariously awful film is that someone actually thought that it was worth putting up money to make it. Two years after Star Wars and Close Encounters, someone actually felt that terrible dialogue and direction foisted upon decent actors like Jack Palance and Barry Morse, special effects out of a high school film class, a cheesily overwrought synthesizer score, and clunky 50's toy-robot villains would make for a worthwhile movie.

I recently saw it with the benefit of fast forward (as another commenter said, the only way to watch this film) and have to wonder if it's really a parody. Everything about it is so stereotypically and perfectly awful, one wonders if the director was pulling a stunt like Princeton physicist Alan Sokal's hoax "postmodern physics" article in a doofy po-mo "science" journal.

But Carol Lynley looks great, as does the Canadian National Exhibition complex in Toronto lit from behind.