IMDb > Millennium (1989) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Millennium
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Millennium More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 65 reviews in total 

49 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

Great sci-fi!

8/10
Author: bbbl67 from Ottawa, Canada
3 August 2003

The ratings on this movie are very poor, but don't be fooled this is a great movie. As I was watching this movie, I actually expected most people wouldn't get it because time-travel pictures are usually too confusing for people with linear minds. If a movie doesn't travel in a straight line from beginning to end, then linear people start hyperventilating. Time travel concepts require a slightly more abstract mind to follow properly, and more than a 2-second attention span.

There was some good comedy in the movie. For example the android Sherman, who looked like he came right out of a 1950's B-movie. Then there was the joke about how the people from the future had to smoke in order to stay healthy, otherwise the air in the past was too clean and pure for them. You disposed of the cigarettes by just tossing them over your shoulders and a point laser would shoot at it and disintegrate it instantly. Also this was definitely a 1980's movie, you could tell just by the hairstyles, which were good for a few laughs.

And for a movie made on the cheap, the special effects weren't half-bad. They certainly weren't comparable to today's CGI effects, but they were of a generation of special effects that made Star Wars so successful.

Their interpretation of time travel concepts was also very interesting. For example, they chose to represent time paradoxes as "temporal quakes". I suppose this was done as a dramatisation technique to show the audience how serious a temporal paradox was in terms they could commonly understand (i.e. like an earthquake).

Don't be fooled by the linear minds giving this movie a bad review, if you have an abstract mind, then you'll love this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Good "B" Film

8/10
Author: Criti-Size from Toronto, Canada
18 August 2004

This film is not as bad as the comments here indicate. Good premise and a few comedic touches enhance this time travel tale starring Cheryl Ladd (who, in my opinion is an very underrated actress) and Kris Kristofferson. I have to admit that although the (not so) special effects could have been better and the last line at the end should have been left out, it's still a memorable film that will entertain most time travel fans. Exterior scenes were filmed in Toronto although the setting is supposed to be Minneapolis.

I wasn't expecting much so maybe that's why I enjoyed it.

"Take a chance, Louise"

7/10

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

One of the few real "B-movies" of the '80s--and a good one.

Author: xavrush89 from Illinois, U.S.A.
22 October 2003

There seems to be some dispute here as to whether this is a good movie or not, and it all depends on what you expect going into it. If you go see (or rent) a sci-fi movie based on an obscure short story directed by the man who had Bo Derek battling a whale in "Orca" twelve years earlier, you have to expect some campiness. Just sit back and enjoy it. The premise of the story is actually quite good, with a little environmental message slipped in. In execution, the people behind this movie must have known that they did not have the budget for a special effects-laden thrill ride, so they decided to take the stylistic approach of making it with one eyebrow raised, a bittersweet melodrama that happens to have a few plane crashes and laser beams. It's "The Goodbye Girl" with time travel. How else do you explain the smarmy robot's flat line delivery, Cheryl Ladd's hairdo, the flight attendants' costumes? Camp, camp, camp. But at the same time, the "paradox" concept gives the mind something to chew. I think director Michael Anderson knew exactly what he was doing. Had this film been marketed differently, it would have easily recouped its budget. I think it's right up there with 1982's "Q"!

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

A mixed bag

6/10
Author: Nilsosmar (Nilsosmar@aol.com) from United States
11 August 2007

Millennium is mixed bag. The script is reasonably good - not too exciting, but thoughtful and well constructed. But there are some problems that drag the movie down.

The romance/relationship at the heart of the story is not bad, and has been unfairly panned. It's actually one of the strengths of the story. Kristofferson does a good job of playing a rather dull character without a lot going for him... a working stiff without much of a life, who wakes up a bit when he meets Cheryl Ladd's character.

Ladd underplays her part nicely, with a nice understanding of the nuances and double meanings of some of her dialogue. The directing is fine, low key, and the editing is good (apart from the ending, which I doubt was the editor's choice). The script sparkles most when it deals with Ladd's character, her difficulties in communicating across a profound cultural barrier, her inadvertently humorous faux pas when interacting with a world very different from her own. The "cigarette scene" in the restaurant is a classic.

There are some problems, mainly around the ending, some of the acting on the part of the minor characters, and the character of Sherman. I won't reveal the ending, but I will say it was disappointing, and probably responsible for the cool reception the film received. The robot Sherman is poorly designed and conceptualized, and drags down the rest of the story. It's not a question of budget, in Sherman's case, but of someone without a good intuitive feeling for science fiction concepts, making decisions about that character. He's not campy, to my mind, he's an embarrassment.

Some people posting here have complained about the dialogue. I think they may be missing the profound reason for Ladd's character's odd choices of words, and what the words reveal about her. Others have complained about the scenes that are shown twice, telling the same story from different points of view. I can understand that people looking for a more action packed movie could have been bored by these scenes, but they do reveal key information; they're not just reruns of the first, they're revelations. They're an effective device for showing the parallel but very different points of view of the key characters.

In sum, Millennium is a reasonably good but not great movie. It's frustrating because a genuinely good movie could be made from the existing footage if the robot was redone (redesigned digitally after the fact and given a better voice and better dialogue), and if the final voice-over was omitted. But I still like watching it and appreciate the elements that are successful in the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Science Fiction for Science Fiction Fans

Author: bneyman from Arlington, Virginia
7 November 2002

Millennium is one the few movies about time travel that stays true to the original source material. This far-out John Varley narrative is brought to the screen as faithfully as can be imagined. If you've ever wondered what really happens during so-called "natural" disasters, this is the script for you. The film is pure science fiction -- fun to watch, but impossible to understand unless close attention is paid. Stay awake and you'll be astonished by this story. Kristofferson and Ladd are surprisingly well paired, and the time-traveling Ladd is 100% believable in this mind-bending scenario. The sole jarring note is the voice-over coda at the end of the film -- an un-credited Churchill quote that sounds comical and out-of-place. This is one of the most under-appreciated movies of the '80s.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Maybe I'm a nut...but I liked this film.

10/10
Author: Jonathan Field (jon@binadopta.com)
8 April 2000

It is campy, no doubt, and there are a couple of scenes that try to take themselves seriously and fall flat, but overall I thought it was a clever, original film with lots of sci-fi fan humor and a bunch of unexpected but meaningful plot twists.

If you like campy, idealistic sci-fi you might want to give it a shot.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Mind Blowing Movie!

10/10
Author: wwoodyard from Australia
10 March 2008

If you like sci-fi because it gives writers the chance to provide plots that make one think outside the square and provide concepts that make you stop and ponder even weeks or years later, then this movie is definitely for you! Indeed, I guarantee you will enjoy it and perhaps even come to love it as I have despite its obvious shortcomings.

If you like nice tidy productions with crisp acting and wonderful cinematography and wish to see something not very taxing on the mind, stay away from this movie! It is not a "beautiful production", the acting does leave something to be desired and the production leaves much to the imagination. But then that can sometimes be a good thing as I personally think not enough is left to the imagination in the motion pictures of today. After all my imagination, and I'm sure yours also, is a far more interesting place than 99.9% of what the film industry thinks is inspirational! But more importantly, it's the beautifully conceptual plot... the wonderful wonderful plot that really makes this movie many times over.

By my rating of this film you can clearly see which camp I sit in. I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did. If you are a fan of sci-fi, then this film is a mind blowing MUST SEE! If you are not a fan of this genre then sadly I am afraid there is not much for you here. Otherwise ENJOY.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

A Classic

10/10
Author: rbirge-1 from Coventry, CT, USA
24 February 2006

This is one of the best science fiction movies of recent history. Although it has its share of flaws (special effects are weak and the acting is mixed), but the plot is excellent and the concepts and implications introduced regarding time travel creative and thought provoking. The movie starts out with a plane that is in the process of falling out of the sky due to a midair collision. The copilot exits the cabin to find all of the passengers are already dead. The question is why, and neither we nor the main character, know the answer until later on in the story. But from this point on (and this is no spoiler as it happens in the first three minutes) all those who love stories about time travel, and the paradoxes and potentials therein are in for a great ride. The short story that this movie is based on (Air Raid) is also a classic and worth reading, but hard to find.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

If you like stories about time travel, you'll love this

Author: Tommy-O from Mississippi, USA
12 July 2000

This is a neat "what's going on here" mystery with plenty of clues, if you watch closely. The time travel premise is great and the story is told from the perspective of present day. That is, until the secret is revealed. Then the mysterious parts are retold, in flashback, from the perspective of the future. Kris is OK, Cheryl is wonderful (as usual), and Travanti almost steals the show.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Amazing. If you can't think in 4 D. stick to easier movies.

10/10
Author: rto1-1 from Cincinnati, OH United States
8 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A guy who smart in real life (Kris Kristofferson) plays a very smart guy in this movie, The very open-minded and observant Bill Smith, is an investigator who is finding a few little impossibilities as he investigates a plane crash.

Meanwhile Daniel J. Travanti, of "Hill Street Blues" fame as Captain Frank Furillo, plays a physicist, Dr. Arnold Mayer, who lectures about time travel, and people from the future. Do these theories (conjectures), explain some of those "little impossibilities". (Sure they do!)

But does Bill care? He has fallen in love with a girl... then loses her ... then he finds her again, when the two have never met (from her point of view.) Got that? If you are sure that you could never "get that", don't watch this movie... and tear up your Mensa application. This movie is too smart for you.

If you can follow the 4D logic, an impossible mystery is solved, the universe is saved, kind'a saved. And Bill gets the beautiful girl(who smokes three packs of cigarettes an HOUR.) This unusual time traveler is played by Cheryl Ladd (who was the last of the original "Charlie's Angels")

There are a few clever sub-plots.

This is a GREAT movie

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history