Daqui a Cem Anos

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.