The Humanity Bureau (2017) User Reviews

The Humanity Bureau: Better idea than movie

[Platypuschow · 5/10 · 25 December 2018]

Another straight to DVD Nicolas Cage movie, I have absolutely no idea what's going on with this guys career.

The Humanity Bureau tells the story of a government agent whose job it is to establish who is contributing to society and who is not. Those deemed "Not" are sent to a place to live out there days away from civilization.

I actually like the idea, I like where the story goes and thought it was very thought provoking and scarily realistic (I could actually see something like this happening in the near future).

The trouble is the idea isn't fully utilized, the movie should have been better but instead comes across rushed, with chronic pacing issues and doesn't embrace the concept quite as tightly as it should have.

Cage phones in an average performance once again and everyone else except Hugh Dillon are instantly forgettable.

Some pretty scenery going hand in hand with some great ideas save it to an extent but it should have been so much better than this.

The Good:

Great visuals

Hugh Dillon

Unpredictable

Fantastic concept

The Bad:

Pacing issues

Wasted potential

Lifeless cast

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

"It's easier to build fear than build a wall" That term is oddly relevant at time of writing

Somehow, someway, despite everything, I'm still a Nicolas Cage fan

Better than the poorly written reviews might suggest

[bjelleybean-364-553679 · 6/10 · 23 December 2018]

This feels a little retro: think Soylent Green. The story is the point here, and the descent of humanity following it's devaluation by a government that no longer cares. It is exactly what it seems to be and it isn't pretending to be anything else.

Don't get your hopes up for this one...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 12 June 2018]

Let's just be blunt; this is a Nicolas Cage movie...

...and with that statement, then you already know what you are in for.

The story in "The Humanity Bureau" is very slow paced, and it is also a very simplistic storyline that offers very little in terms of twists and surprises.

The storyline just trotted on in a very mundane and monotonous tone, which gave next to no variation to events or thrills.

The acting in the movie was adequate, taking into consideration the little material they had to work with.

I looked at the clock after what had felt like 2 hours something, but was shocked to find that only a single hour had passed.

This is not among the best of Nicholas Cage movies. But then again, doesn't really offer much of a challenge to become that, now, does it?

Oh dear how sad for all the good old actors of yesteryear - Is this where they go to die!

[omendata · 3/10 · 16 November 2017]

It seems many of the movie greats have become straight to DVD fodder now. They have all gone down the Lance Henriksen, Ron Perlman, John Cusack route and I am very sad to say we have to add Nick Cage to the list of has beens. Is it because they are too old? Well, No I certainly don't think so; Nick and John Cusack both seem to be dying their hair with boot polish these days but at least Nick hasn't had too many face lifts like John Cusack (seriously have you seen him in CELL & SINGULARITY - He looks like a woman). Nick looks half decent for a guy in his 50's so why why why are they not being offered decent roles?

This was really cheap from the very opening scene with the drone next to his car it looked so bad it wasn't even good enough to appear in a home made video. The cars were supposed to be smartphone computer controlled and it is supposed to be the future but they were all ordinary cars with nothing scifi about them except the Humanity logo - very, very poor show old chep!

The movie lurched from one cheap location to another as a different reviewer pointed out quite correctly to save money obviously. The guy with the eye patch - what can i say but cringe, cringe, triple cringe!!!

The acting was wooden and plodding as though they were all just picking up a cheque and the artistic integrity mattered not. The story really was like a retread of an old tired cliché and the poor effects just made the whole thing seem like another pointless exercise. I though singularity was poor but this is actually worse.

Scifi channel movies are better than this - if that doesn't give you the SP then nothing will!

another Nicolas Cage special

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 18 February 2018]

In the near future, America is devastated by evironmental and economic disasters. Noah Kross (Nicolas Cage) is an agent of the Humanity Bureau, a government agency which determines whether a citizen is productive or not. He is sent to evaluate the farm of Rachel Weller and her son Lucas. The farm is barren and Kross decides to send them to the relocation center. When he gives them a break, his superior Adam Westinghouse (Hugh Dillon) seeks to stop them all.

It seems like the filmmakers conceived of a dystopian world but failed to create a compelling story within it. This is another Cage special. It should be a warning sign for any of his recent movies. If he thinks the script is great, there is no doubt that something is wrong with it. The big reveal reminds me of Soylent Green. In fact, I'd rather have Soylent Green. This is generally cheap, inferior in every way, and lacking intensity. Cage is going through the motion. This is a small Canadian sci-fi indie trying to hit above its weight and failing.

This is an awful movie...

[richard-davis-987-676615 · 1/10 · 15 November 2017]

I've just watched this, and I have to say - it's horrible.

It's pretty sad to see the demise of a great Hollywood actor, being forced to take roles in such awful, low budget films to pay the rent (and tax). Such a shame - Nick Cage is pretty much ruined forever now.

The movie, without revealing the plot, takes a 70 year old truth and projects it forward in a very predictable "run it by the numbers" sort of way. The plot line is thin. The acting is thin. The story isn't worth watching or listening to.

It seems to me, that writers are being specifically forced to write stories that deliberately focus on using ultra low-budget locations, very small casts and low budget FX to keep the overall film budget super-low to de-risk everything. This very notion is utterly evident here, where everything smacks of a "cheap, low budget and straight to DVD/TV Movie" effort.

It's largely unwatchable in places. Examples of this are:

1 - Early on, someone that Cage's character is talking to attempts to murder him. The acting and dialogue is utterly, utterly dire.

2 - Towards the end, a child is escaping the clutches of a villain in an old warehouse. This is so stupidly acted and "storied" that it's laughable.

3 - The main protagonist/villain is so awful throughout, they really ought to curl up in a ball and hang their heads in shame at their performance.

The big "reveal" at the end. Dear, oh dear. It was lame, predictable and utterly underwhelming. Don't touch this with a barge-pole and go watch Wind River instead if you want a good, absorbing thriller!

A few stumbles, but mostly solid SF paranoia road movie

[shoobe01-1 · 7/10 · 27 December 2018]

This is an old-school paranoia thriller, with just enough near future sci fi for fun. Think an Outer Limits episode. it is mostly well written, Cage and his main charges are quite decent in it, and the supporting cast (control room workers, the gas station attendant...) are good to excellent. Unlikely characters like the mountain man (and his clan) are, somehow, entirely believable. Sets and locations outside the big shiny city are very nice.

The main sin it commits is thinking it's more than it is. A good example is right up front, and I suspect why a lot of people watched a few minutes then turned it off. There's a simply horrible visual effect of a drone that buzzes the car. For, no reason at all. It added nothing to the film, but was so badly done (poor quality shot, and the drone acts unlike a real one would or could) that it makes the movie look like a third rate 1990s video game.

Secondary sins are overly bad baddies. This would have worked better if the agency he worked for was more bureaucratic, indeed even boring. Fewer empty concrete rooms, and more wood paneled conference rooms and worn out cubicle farms. Same for the whole city generally, especially as they drive old cars because (they say in the film) there are no new ones. Most specifically for bad guys, Hugh Dillon was way too arch, a caricature of himself, the very definition of scenery chewing. Even if restrained, bald eyepatch is a bit too on the nose for our hero's former best friend; he's just The Baddie, and it's too trite to be easily looked past.

But overall quite decent. Not great. A bit too predictable-but so was "Time Enough at Last" and it's a classic!-and a bit too cheaply done but when looked at as a B movie, not bad at all.

Do not watch unless you enjoy torture. Ignore the rating (6.4 at time of review)

[somethingclever1 · 2/10 · 18 February 2018]

This movie is awful. It doesn't even manage to be comically watchable. I have never written a review for a movie or show despite a few thousand ratings. This was so terrible I was compelled to warn people.

I will finish this review, despite the fact that in my frustration at having sat through this mind-bogglingly stupid movie, and while writing this, I spilled a drink and ruined a mouse and a keyboard.

That's a helluva secret to keep

[lanechaffin-964-63190 · 7/10 · 15 August 2021]

No doubt the low reviews are because of the perceived political bias. The movie is not set so far in the future, in 2030, that you can't do that. And in fact it does even make connections to present day politics. But nothing is really preached one way or the other. Still, if you are pro-socialist and big government, i would venture to say you won't like the movie. If you are a Nicholas Cage fan, by all means indulge. While the other government agents drive nondescript SUV's, Nick's ride is a vintage 5th generation El Camino. Talk about cool. Nick tries to help a beautiful and spunky desert dweller played by Sarah Lind. There's of course more to the story, and the budget is thin (that's a good thing in my book). The driving scenes of Nick and Sarah are old school and kind of funny. I don't want to spoil it, but I feel the ending could have been done better. If the last few minutes were a little different i'd have given it an 8. But its all connected to the story from the start really. So, enjoy Nick being Nick.

This movie is so bad. Almost too bad to be laughable.

[perryhdd · 1/10 · 29 January 2018]

Bad dialog, terrible plot, horrible acting. I seriously can't believe I watched it. What was keeping me in there was the realization that once it's finished I'm going to register to IMDB and rate it as negatively as possible (1 is way too high for this film), just to get that little tingly feeling of revenge.

My cat could have acted, written and directed a better film than "The Humanity Bureau".

It is believable today

[gpxfkfd · 8/10 · 22 August 2022]

I guess when the movie came out the reviewers thought it was ridiculous. Today is a different story given the tings our government has been doing recently. Today, it is totally believable.

Blade Runner meets Mad Max via Logan's Run; not for all but this viewer liked it

[inkblot11 · 7/10 · 10 February 2019]

Noah (Nicolas Cage) is a dirty deeds henchman for a future American dystopian society. Global warming has turned much of the country into desert and ruins. In the city, the ruling class makes the decisions for all by running the Humanity Bureau. As such, all citizens are "watched" and if they can't really eek out a living in the parched earth, they are given orders to be escorted to The New Eden, a supposed Utopia development. One of those in charge, Adam (Hugh Dillon) delights in getting folks off the governments payrolls and into Eden. Thus, out drive men like Noah, who give the bad news to citizens and takes them, by hook or by crook, to their new home. However, there are rumors that Eden is no paradise but, instead, like a concentration camp. If Noah comes for them, they don't want to go. In fights, Noah uses the ultimate force and takes them down. One day, he is sent to a single mother, Rachel (Sara Lind) and her darling eleven year old, Lucas (Andrew Davies). She appears to be doing the best she can but Noah goes over the figures and says she and her son must go to the New Eden. Yet, when push comes to shove, Noah can't do it. There are secrets in his past which make him, instead, go on the run from the authorities with Rachel and Lucas. Can three little people fiee a well armed government with all available technology? We shall see. This average science fiction film has many similarities to classic ones like Blade Runner, Mad Max, and Logan's Run. One positive is its art direction, which has created a shiny, metallic, cold city and a ruined earth everywhere else. Another plus is the cast, for Cage is always great while Lind. Davies, and Dillon do great work, too. There is comic relief, in small part, by an African American actor whose name escapes me. But, in the end, the movie just rises slightly above lameness, with a meandering script and direction, while a sadly violent ending jolts the viewer to repulsion. If you like Dystopian movies, you will like this one, too; but most viewers will probably want to pass it by.

It's like someone tried to make a terrible movie.... and succeeded!

[kjellneumann · 2/10 · 16 November 2017]

Direct to DVD? Sure whatever, it's still terrible by that standard.

• Terrible acting - Terrible dialogue (seriously terrible) - Mediocre effects - Mediocre story - Mediocre characters (Tho stereotypical bad guy is so nonsensical he's almost hilarious)

Feels like a bad pilot episode. If you want to watch it for some cringe laughs, be prepare to be bored for 90mins before a half-assed ending.

Why? Why do they make movies like this?

[support-36287 · 1/10 · 16 November 2017]

I might be unfair, I only watched the first 20 minutes or so, and only because I wanted to give Nicolas Cage a chance (I really enjoyed many of his early movies). But these 20 minutes where unbearable. Poor acting, slow, predictable, boring, unconvincing. Credits (and the one point I have to give) to the guy in front of a computer screen asking: "since when is that standard procedure?". That was actually the best performance and most interesting line of the movie. It lasted for about 2 seconds, there was some magic in the air, something was building up, there was a tangible tension. But then the other guy said something and the first guy shrugged and the moment was gone. Gone, as far as I'm concerned, forever. That was the last new Nicolas Cage movie I will ever dare to watch again.

It Was Okay

[rutzelb · 5/10 · 9 May 2018]

Noah Kross (Nicolas Cage) works for the Humanity Bureau and they try to get people to go to the city to enjoy a better life. The land is a desert the results of climate warming and water has to be boiled to be able to drink if you can find it. There are no rivers or lakes anywhere. Many people reject the government plan to move them because they do not trust the government. This disturbs Noah.

Noah comes across a woman, Rachael Weller (Sarah Lind) , who he didn't know, but did know Rachael Weller and she is not her and she has a son Lucas (Jakob Davies). It turns out this Rachael took the real Rachael's identity and cared for the real Rachael's son, Lucas, as if he were her son. The real Rachael died and this Rachael took her identity to prove the birth of Lucas. Noah is supposed to insure that Rachael and Lucas leave, but delays their departure.

So Noah, Rachael and Lucas take off and try to go to Canada where the waters are still there or so they want to believe. Agent Westinghouse (Hugh Dillon) is on their trail and he believes Noah is going Rogue.

This could have been a better story if it were more developed, but sometimes when you write a script while on roller skates, there isn't much time and you are afraid of crashing. So we are left with an outline of a story. One day Nicolas Cage will pick a good script. We just have to wait. The Nicolas Cage Impersonators are hoping for a better script too. They need more material. Ha!

Not such a good cat and mouse game and the ending will surprise. I supposed most of you already know what the government did to those people who they conned into leaving. (5/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Humor: None. Language: Brief small stuff only. Rating: C

Terrible and sad to see Mr Cage

[eric-83649 · 1/10 · 11 February 2018]

Very sad to see Mr Cage who obviously are broke to accept to go this low. He is not even close to his former days and this is the last one I will see with his name on it.

Movie in general is low budget and actors are doing terrible.

A solid good. Must everything be great?

[tin-B · 7/10 · 24 July 2018]

I would call this a sleeper hit, it just hasn't happened yet and probably won't. I am one who does not expect nor do I want blockbuster hit smeared all over every movie I watch, it makes blue skies not so blue anymore, gotta take the bad with the good and even the mediocre and sometimes the almost great but wasn't.

That's this one. And there nothing wrong with being almost great. It's still dam entertaining. The ending twists are great. Good future story line. Good plot, good to watch.

Ran Out of Money or of Ideas?

[slundy-19788 · 5/10 · 8 December 2018]

I gave this a 5-rating for one simple reason: It kept me sufficiently interested to watch it to the end. No, it wasn't enthralling and, no, it wasn't exciting. The characters were poorly developed and no thought or creativity went into the single snowy mountain scenery. Plot holes abound, but I ended up not caring because I never had that suspension of disbelief that great movies inspire.

As a storyline, it had potential. But occasional glimpses of "what might have been" left a deep feeling of wanting so much more than was delivered.

Ultimately, the ending had a genuine feeling of "Oops, we spent too much time and money, so let's finish it quick". Very disappointing, but it did keep me watching (silly me).

5 stars for B movie effect 8 stars for story

[stormyweather_keeps_raining · 6/10 · 14 July 2022]

It is a low budget B movie so can't really rate it more than 5 stars but it deserves at least 8 stars for concept. It's prophetically close to what we are soon going to see as our own reality except we will be used for transplant parts and servants to the 1% if we escape the coming famine. We are being programmed right now with fear of a nuclear threat, plagues, and a climate crisis. "It's easier to use fear than build a wall" "There were too many people" <---sound familiar?

a completely ridiulous movie

[dave-mcclain · 1/10 · 8 April 2018]

"The Humanity Bureau" (R, 1:35) is a dystopian sci-fi action thriller directed by Rob W. King ("Hungry Hills") and written by Dave Schultz ("Considering Love and Magic"). The plot revolves around how the government deals with its population when climate change and other factors cause such harm that resources become scarce and the divide between the haves and have-nots becomes uncrossable.

Noah Kross (Oscar winner Nicolas Cage) is an agent in The Humanity Bureau, a governmental organization which assesses whether people who live outside of the city walls are able to care for themselves and are being productive members of society or whether they should be resettled to a mysterious location called The New Eden. Although he is up for a promotion, Noah allows his personal feelings to influence his judgment when he takes pity on a single mother (Sarah Lind) and her young son (Jakob Davies) and goes on the run with them (trying to get to Canada) so they won't be sent away.

"The Humanity Bureau" is even more ridiculous than it sounds. The set-up envisions a combination of science-based doomsday scenarios which are scientifically impossible - and the situation it sets up for society and government isn't much more plausible. What's more, the plot points seem random and silly, while the twists are either predictable, exasperating - or both. And the characters rarely behave, react or speak like rational people do. Regarding the acting, there is no weak link - all the actors are equally weak. The script tries to make some good points, but the messages it tries to deliver are wholly ineffective in such a mess of a movie. Oh, the humanity! "D"

WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION

[cheryllines · 8/10 · 1 July 2022]

I think this movie is well worth watching & the poor reviews are unfair.

In our current climate with our ecosystems failing, habitats being destroyed & marine life being ravaged to the extent that many species are under threat of extinction, rising cost of living, governents & big corporations widening the gap between rich and poor a dystopian future is not so unbelievable.

Hopefully this movie will stay fiction & not become a prediction of what's to come.

Love Nicolas Cage, he's a legend.

Just another dystopian future

[nicole-mccann · 6/10 · 3 January 2019]

It was better than most of the crap I've been watching lately. It's also probably close to being something that could feasibly happen in the future. There was a bit of a plot twist but I didn't feel like it was compounded on for character development. The young boy was pretty adorable and I do like Nicholas Cage, although he's had some real serious misses with some movies, this wasn't so bad. It wasn't super great either - but I don't feel like I wasted my life by watching it. As far as dystopian films go, this one did put a slightly new feel on what the United States will do to people they begin finding useless. All in all, I'd say go ahead.

Cage is not deserving of such low budget films

[Hexecutioner · 1/10 · 18 November 2017]

The idea is brilliant - it is entirely possible that in the near or not-so-near future (the way things stand at this time) that there may be such a Humanity Bureau as an official government agency. This has been prophesied recently by other releases e.g. "What Happened to Wednesday".

It does not warrant Nicolas Cage starring in such low-budget crap though. An absolute travesty and short of criminal. Cage is a good actor and mustn't be associated with rubbish like this. Vicellous Shannon is funny and should be given his own comedy show or something.

The whole production team incl. scriptwriters and Rob King should either be given bigger budgets or not be allowed anywhere near film production. The film is not even watchable at the best of times and frankly, my 5-year-old can make a better film with an iPhone and a 10-year-old laptop.

Don't waste your money or your time with this film.

This is an awful movie 2.0

[titchyblackmore · 1/10 · 1 March 2018]

I can't say this is the worst film ever made because I haven't seen every film, I can't imagine there are many as bad as this, I had to rate and review because there seems to be a concerted attempt by interested parties to vote this film up, There are people giving it 10/10

No thank you!

[missbrandi-93154 · 4/10 · 23 November 2017]

In the words of Damon Wayans, "Hated it". I've seen better acting at elementary school play. The script left much to be desired. The plot twists were not so expected. But they were kinda stupid. It left me with way too many questions. The way it ended, there could be a sequel...but lord I hope not