H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come Reviews

Page 1 of 2
½ October 29, 2016
Set in "the tomorrow after tomorrow" - which I presume means it is set in the very distant future rather than in two days' time, the two things this film is certainly far from are being any good and the novel that the film's title firmly suggests it is based on.
½ July 30, 2016
not so much skip this see the 1936 version it is far superior 2 this version.
½ June 5, 2012
Not one of the best of interpretations of the work of H.G. Wells

But we get some so-so to decent western story set on the moon with a crazy guy and some heroes saving the day.

Little like all over the place without getting anywhere. Decent acting is inckuded
½ March 31, 2012
This 70's space opera was a distant but fond childhood memory. I wish it had stayed that way. The decades have not been kind to it.
October 30, 2011
Looks inspired way to much by Star Wars.
½ September 17, 2011
ok remake but skip this and check out the original 1936 version.
½ January 29, 2011
My brother and I walked out of this movie in 1979. We just watched it on Netflix for nostalgia. It is as bad as I remembered but now I know it oddly had nothing to do with the book by Wells. Watch it only if you want to poke fun at it.
½ January 17, 2011
In the wake of "Star Wars" came a bunch of low-budget attempts to cash in on the sci-fi craze. This one is extraordinarily bad! With super low production values and Jack Palance chewing up the scenery it's an ordeal to get through. At least the last 20 minutes is funny, the rest is just plain boring.
February 8, 2010
Even a power mad Jack Palance can't save this movie.
August 31, 2009
I watched this many many times when it was first released. OK I was about 7 or 8 years old. Just acquired it now. Still not available on DVD and there's a reason why.
This film is so bad I'm not sure it's a spoof. It makes Blakes 7 look good. Very poor acting, worse robots and special effects, a pointless scene on earth, boring space journey to an anti-cliamax and confusing ending, how did this ever get made never mind released.
Approach with no preconceptions and enjoy it for the above.
March 14, 2009
Even a power mad Jack Palance can't save this movie.
½ January 30, 2009
Honestly... terrible movie. Obviously made due to the success of Star Wars, but no where near as good. Bad acting from good actors. Pretty cheesy too. Perhaps the film from the '30s that H.G. Wells played a larger part in making is better?
January 24, 2009
While it's fun to see Ontario Place as a futuristic moon colony, this low budget sci-fi Star Wars rip-off is pretty dull. A few moments of camp value here and there, mostly involving Jack Palance's bizarre performance and a planetary rebellion involving about eight soldiers, but not enough to keep it interesting. And there are long, drawn out subplots that end up being red herrings. Forgettable.
½ August 5, 2008
Trash Sci Fi doesn't get much trashier than this! SO bad its good!
½ July 28, 2008
this film is TERRIBLE, no story im still not sure what it was about, try the 1936 version, much more enlightening (never read the HG well story so cant comment on now close either are)
April 10, 2008
I heard this is a good film.
August 12, 2007
Another lady does science! This lady has very bouncy hair. She must be very important.
July 14, 2007
Hilariously bad low-budget Canadian attempt to cash in on the post-Star Wars sci-fi craze. Lame effects and attempts to pass off the basement of a water treatment plant as some futuristic building. Plus another loopy performance from Jack Palance who is seriously slumming it. What this has to do with H.G. Wells, I'll never know. Good for a few laughs if you're in the mood.
½ February 28, 2007
I need to see this again
½ February 23, 2007
One of the worst sci fi films ever conceived. H. G. Wells must've been spinning in his grave.
Page 1 of 2