The Shape of Things to Come
The Shape of Things to Come
PG | 01 August 1979 (USA)
The Shape of Things to Come Trailers

Planet Earth is a devastated wasteland, and what's left of humanity has colonized the Moon in domed cities. Humanity's continued survival depends on an anti-radiation drug only available on planet Delta Three, which has been taken over by Omus, a brilliant but mad mechanic who places no value on human life. Omus wants to come to the Moon to rule and intends to attack it by ramming robot-controlled spaceships into the domes. Dr. John Caball, his son Jason, Jason's friend, Kim, and a robot named Sparks embark on Caball's space battlecruiser on an unauthorized mission to Delta Three to stop Omus.

Reviews
GamerTab

That was an excellent one.

... View More
Prolabas

Deeper than the descriptions

... View More
Kaydan Christian

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

... View More
Gary

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

... View More
hetoreyn

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.

... View More
twoshedsmcginty

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.

... View More
FilmWatcher

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.

... View More
tmsindc-2

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"

... View More