VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,7/10
7293
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAn NTSB investigator seeking the cause of an airline disaster meets a warrior woman from 1000 years in the future.An NTSB investigator seeking the cause of an airline disaster meets a warrior woman from 1000 years in the future.An NTSB investigator seeking the cause of an airline disaster meets a warrior woman from 1000 years in the future.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 5 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
This movie should be a total piece of ****, but what comes through all the bad acting, cheesy effects, bizarre plot turns, and embarrassing characters, is a lot of heart and an actual dark and dank apocalyptic film which is just as optimistic, NAY MORE OPTIMISTIC, than anything the STAR TREK universe has presented to us viewers to date. Yes, you can have it both in this movie...the end of the world AND the rescue of humankind. It's all in this little grade "B" movie which is filled with so many idiosyncrasies that it's a hoot to watch more than once.
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.
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.
Millennium is a movie that does not fully convince as a sci-fi probably because of the rather tired romance plot added to the script. It does however have a rather intriguing storyline; two passenger planes collide in mid air, and ominous effects start to abound upon the investigating officer. His enquiries are further enhanced by premonitions of an attractive young woman who may hold the key to why the crash happened...
Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd prove themselves as credible film stars, but their talents are hampered by the poor overall impression given out by Millennium. The script is not the last word in brilliance, and that simple romance plot we witness leaves a lot to be desired. Add to that rather tame special effects and a sudden uninspiring ending, Millennium is certainly no masterpiece and will be easily forgotten.
An interesting premise proves a let down for an avid film fan like myself but is lifted up by Ladd, who proves she can portray a character far beyond Angel Kris Munroe. 5/10.
Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd prove themselves as credible film stars, but their talents are hampered by the poor overall impression given out by Millennium. The script is not the last word in brilliance, and that simple romance plot we witness leaves a lot to be desired. Add to that rather tame special effects and a sudden uninspiring ending, Millennium is certainly no masterpiece and will be easily forgotten.
An interesting premise proves a let down for an avid film fan like myself but is lifted up by Ladd, who proves she can portray a character far beyond Angel Kris Munroe. 5/10.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe outdoor set used for the Boeing 747 crash site was so convincing that pilots landing at Toronto Airport were radioing in what they thought was a recent airplane crash.
- BlooperAs Louise enters the bar, her hair is flat. When she is shown inside, suddenly, her hair is permed.
- Citazioni
Louise Baltimore: Your mother was a cash register!
Sherman: And she turned a tidy profit.
- Versioni alternativeSPOILER: Two different endings of this film exist. The first simply shows the destruction of Futureworld after Bill and Louise step through the Gate. The second shows an actual trip through the Gate after Futureworld is destroyed.
- ConnessioniFeatured in In Search of Tomorrow (2022)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Millennium?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 5.777.099 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1.614.692 USD
- 27 ago 1989
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 5.777.099 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 48 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti

Divario superiore
By what name was Millennium (1989) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi