input: The message of a world on the brink of war is disregarded by the masses; the mythical city of Everytown in 1940 represents England in general, but it could just as well stand for any nation of the world. When war finally does arrive, it's ravages continue not for another five years, but until 1966 at which time Everytown is completely destroyed. Adding to the desolation and toll on humanity is the "wandering sickness", a pestilence that continues for another four years.

"Things to Come" balances both a fatalistic and futuristic world view, where science holds out a hope for a revived civilization. The "Wings Over the World" concept plays out a bit corny, though it's spokesman Cabal (Raymond Massey) is unwavering in his mission and dedicated to his cause. If he fails, others will follow. This message is continually reinforced throughout the film, brought home convincingly in Massey's end of movie speech. Man's insatiable need to test the limits of knowledge and achievement requires an "all the universe or nothing" mindset.

The film's imagery of automation and machinery in the second half is reminiscent of the great silent film "Metropolis". As Everytown is rebuilt and transformed by the year 2036, the spectacle of the city's rebirth strikes a resonant chord, as architecture of modern cities of today suggest the movie's eerily prophetic vision is coming to fruition. Where the movie gets it wrong by sixty seven years though is man's first mission to the moon, but in 1936, a hundred year timetable probably seemed more legitimate than 1969.

"Things to Come" is one of those rarities in film, a picture that makes you think. Which side will you come down on, the forces for advancement in the face of uncertainty or maintain the status quo? It's not a comfortable question, as both choices offer inherent dangers and unknowable outcomes. Those who choose to be bystanders risk being swept away by forces beyond their control.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.

The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I absolutely loved this movie. I am not even sure what particularly about it but I think it was wonderful and should be available for DVD. The women were strangers and yet got along well enough to spend the time they did in the Villa in Italy. The actors, in my opinion, did an excellent job. The characters were all so different and yet clever story that made it work. There is humor, drama and relationship issues all in good time. This requires 10 lines but I just can't think of any more to say so I will just rattle on until I get 10 lines. So sorry about this. What else can I possibly say it has been a long time since I last saw it. I am looking forward to view again but it isn't available.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I see where a few people involved in this debacle wrote reviews to share their side of the story, and I thought what they wrote was helpful in understanding it. The fact that they basically came up with excuses -- rewrites, budget constraints, production formats etc -- simply underlines how bad this movie is. And my criticisms in panning it are not personally directed but simply a warning that this one doesn't make the cut.

It's watchable, but barely so. There are plot holes in every corner, the dialogue borders on the ridiculous, and the ending is telegraphed a mile away. The modestly interesting feature of a hologram interacting with a recon team get drowned in silly dialogue like who makes a meal in the midst of what is supposed to be a tense and deadly encounter with an unknown enemy. Would ya wrassle us up some Hamburger Helper Sally, between us getting killed by these automated carpet sweepers? Apparently this elite team equipped with the latest gizmos and red plastic tubed wonder armor has no access to MREs. Once they get into the last rooms they treat the place more like a four star motel than a deadly encounter zone.

The rationale for the encounter with the fearsome Rook is that it can't be killed single handedly. Yet only one scene ago, the hero making that case abandoned King to do exactly that. Huh? Vivian Woo was attractive and hands down the best acted character in the movie. But that's not saying much.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative