Things to Come is a film based on a story by H.G. Wells made in 1936. The story is excellent on several levels, not the least of which, is the view of human nature put forth. Although prophetic about technological advancements (some accurate, some not...the "space gun" is great) what Wells really hits on is how although technology may advance, human nature remains static.
I posted earlier about aspects of human nature in regards primarily to isms. How we turn beliefs to institutions that in turn are used to control others. I guess one example would be Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Hobbes' view of human nature was so pessimistic that he believed we need a huge governmental infrastructure (the Leviathan) to protect us from our baser natures, without which life would be "nasty, brutish and short." He does recognize perhaps an element of human nature, that people will use brutality to get what they want.
On the other hand, altruists seem to believe that we are all inherently "good." One of Marx's many misunderstandings was that not ALL humans are altruistic until corrupted by Capitalism. The truth is that some people are inherently good and others, not so much. The dichotomy can best be characterized as rational vs irrational self interest. Or altruism vs myopic selfishness. Smeo choose to be one way, some the other.
One purpose of religion is to encourage people to be good, or altruistic. Similarly, one purpose of government is to use force, or the threat thereof, to achieve the same purpose. One of the largest problems of the isms involved is to force, by whatever means necessary, people to conform to a given set of principles. One of the key elements of the film is that no matter how noble the principle or the outcome thereof someone will disagree. What becomes of those who do? I used to do a series of lectures entitled Designing the Perfect Society, something mankind has been attempting since the dawn of time. The biggest impediment, even in a Democracy, is what happens to those who disagree? In a Democracy (pure) it's majority rule. The minority have the right to shut up and go along or suffer consequences. In a more authoritarian regime the consequences tend to be more draconian. The problem remains...even in a "perfect" society, what happens to those that don't fit in? The most we can ever hope for isn't a perfect regime, but a dynamic equilibrium. Eastern philosophy has the Yin/Yang principle. As long as stability is achieved things will go well. Anyway- that's my 2 cents. I hope you enjoy the film...there's a lot in it. It criticizes war, power, technology, you name it. It's by far one of Wells' best works, although not as well known as The Time Machine and War of the Worlds.