Millennium (1989) Poster

(1989)

User Reviews

Review this title
82 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
A mixed bag
Nilsosmar11 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.
29 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Loopher
thesar-21 September 2019
30th Anniversary: 1989 - the Best Year in Cinema Marathon Film #65/100: "Millennium" (1st Viewing.) I swore I saw this before, but only remember the plane scene. Maybe, it was the TV show. I would've remembered more as this movie was pretty darn good. I enjoyed this take on time travel. Not perfect, but my interest was never lost throughout and I loved the female lead, Cheryl Ladd. Worth watching once...every thousand years or so.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting sci-fi
jamiecostelo5816 December 2006
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.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Science Fiction for Science Fiction Fans
bneyman7 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.
44 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
B-grade science-fiction, but highly enjoyable and well cast...
moonspinner5525 January 2006
Here's a guilty pleasure for science-fiction buffs: Kris Kristofferson plays a plane crash investigator who becomes involved with a mysterious woman (the smoldering Cheryl Ladd, looking quite the fox); turns out she's a time-traveling visitor from the future who rescues doomed passengers aboard crippled airliners, replacing them with lookalike corpses. Intriguing premise gets a decent treatment on a medium-sized budget. The plot threads are wound fairly tight and the story plays out satisfyingly. Daniel J. Travanti is terrific in support as a wily physicist and time travel specialist with a Cheshire cat-like grin; Kristofferson is quite commendable, and Ladd is frequently amazing. A real sleeper, and an entertaining slice of '80s cinema. *** from ****
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
CHEER! - (7 stars out of 10)
BJG-Reviews1 September 2020
The stage curtains open ...

"Millennium" starring Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd is a Sci-Fi extravaganza straight out of the 80's. I remember seeing trailers for this when it first came out, and with horror/thriller movies like "Lifeforce" and "They Live" having already hit the big screen, I expected more of the same. However, it was anything but.

Bill Smith (Kristofferson), an investigator for the NTSB, is brought in to look into the strange occurrences surrounding the crash of an airliner. After listening to a recording salvaged from the wreckage of the plane, they are confused by the exclamation of the co-pilot, who had gone to check on the passengers, that they were all already dead ... burned up. However, they are not able to find any evidence that a fire had taken place before the actual crash, so Bill digs a little deeper to unravel both the mystery behind the crash and the sudden appearance of a beautiful blonde who seems to know more than she is letting on.

I was full on expecting this to be another Sci-Fi / Horror blend, but there were absolutely no Horror elements to this one. I was a bit let down, but at the same time, I loved the originality and premise of this movie. I loved Cheryl Ladd's character and she played it very well, convincingly. In fact, to buy into what was happening behind the scenes, both she and Kristofferson needed to sell their roles, which they both did. The special effects are dated, and the costumes almost laughable - yet effective.

I recommend this film. It is both entertaining and thought provoking. Not at all what I was expecting, but pleasantly so. It hasn't aged very well, but when I put it in for a repeat viewing the other night, I still thoroughly enjoyed it. There is enough going on to pull you in and keep you engaged in a well paced effort. 7 solid stars out of 10.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting Sci-Fi premise but poor script
Aphex9724 May 2001
This movie is a classic example of how an interesting science fiction idea can be ruined by adding a lame romance subplot into the mix. This movie had a very interesting premise: Two planes collide in mid air and crash. The chief investigator (Kris Krisstoferson) of the accident discovers some very strange elements to the crash. His inquiries attract his attention (and affections) to a mysterious girl, who eventually reveals the truth that people from the future are traveling back in time to steal passengers that are about to die on airplane crashes. They do this to help save the dying human race in a dank apocalyptic future.

While this is a very interesting premise, all the interesting science fiction and mystery elements are unfortunately made nearly worthless by the horrible pacing, extremely poor dialogue, annoying redundancy (we see many of the more boring scenes twice from different perspectives!), and worst of all, the silly romance plot.

I liked the look of the future world in this movie. The production designers did a good job, especially on Sherman the personal servant and on the future elders, who were held together loosely with spare parts in their tubes. However, the dialogue was so cheesy I could only enjoy the excellent scenery when the actors didn't open their mouths to ruin it. The ending of this movie was so horribly cheesy I wanted to vomit. When will Hollywood learn that never every movie needs a romantic subplot and a unrealistic happy ending...

FINAL RATING: 5/10 - The only reason I even give it a 5 is because of the interesting premise and nice production design. Its sad that these excellent elements were ruined by such a poor script.

Noob Aalox
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good premise. So-so execution
bowmanblue5 April 2018
I'd never heard of 'Millennium' and have only just got round to watching it. That's probably because it seems to have been a bit forgotten in terms of classic/cult eighties sci-fi films. And that's a shame, because it has many good moments that deserve a little more love.

It's about an air-crash investigator (Kris Kristofferson) who discovers that there's more than meets the eye going on when he finds what could well be an 'alien' device among the ruins of a downed plane. He looks into this and we find that it wasn't in fact extraterrestrials who are meddling in our aviation, but people from the future.

Now, I'd got about a quarter of the way into this film and I was really enjoying it, wondering why it wasn't more popular than it was. It's well shot, well acted, the premise is interesting and, best of all, when we do see the 'future-world' it's pretty cool. However, just as I was really getting into it, the story slowed to practically as stand-still and (thanks to its time travel narrative) - literally - went over old ground and spent a fair portion of the film telling us something that we already had seen, only in a longer, more pointless version.

Granted, it picks up again towards the end and, talking of the final act, the ending does leave a little bit up to your own interpretation, so if you like your stories totally cleared-up then you could be a bit disappointed.

This was a shame, as if this middle segment could have been reworked, then the whole film would have benefited (and possibly found its way to a wider, more appreciative/mainstream audience). I'd probably recommend it now to people who like cheesy, eighties 'Dr Who-esque' sci-fi, as I have a strange feeling that our favourite Time Lord may even have copied a few elements displayed here.

Special mention to the android who was almost as sarcastic as 'K-2SO' from 'Rogue One.'
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Little History of a Great Writer and a Bad Movie
caramia20029 March 2006
I was a huge sci-fi buff in the 70's and 80's. Varley hit the scene in the 70's as a stupendous short story writer. IMO, he changed sci-fi writing forever. Somehow I missed "Air Raid", but I did read the prescient *environmental* novel "Millennium" (1984), the novel he must have fleshed out from "Air Raid"? "Millennium", the novel, is very detailed, very original and sophisticated, and not much like the movie. I was very disappointed with the movie when I first saw it (but not as much as now) as there are few movies that come from true sci-fi writers (Hugo winners and the like) and I was really looking forward to it. This is not Star Wars territory.

Kristofferson was OK for Kristofferson back then, Cheryl Ladd lost her acting chops for 108 minutes and she was much older looking than recently ("Permanent Midnight"). I didn't say face-lift, did I? Daniel J. Travanti was good, of course, but barely in the movie. The Robot was tongue in cheek and probably the only redeeming quality. Basically, there is nothing in this movie but mistakes. The movie captured me when it started but when the first plane crashed, the movie crashed.

While I love Varley, his forte is short stories, some novels are moderate to great, but definitely not screenplays (although we don't know how tied his hands were and he only wrote one other screenplay - "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank", which I have not seen, but have read, yet another fantastic short story).

I try to find redeeming qualities even in bad movies, or try to see the B-movie-ness of them, but this one is just bad. Ed Wood bad. So I guess it is campy, but not even camp I enjoy. Go *read* some Varley. The short stories first, you will be blown away.
10 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Um, Hollywood, how about a remake?
dedeurs21 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Basically I hate films about time travel, they usually break their backs on the paradoxes. "A Sound of Thunder" I found an exception; the screenplay is not too complicated. This one is also comprehensible, quite a relief. But the finale, the finale...was this a leftover from The Thunderbirds? "Millennium" BEGS for a remake. The short story by Varley made a huge impression on me in the 1970s, it's quite grim and gritty, but today's tough cinema and unrelenting CGI can cope with that. We would at least be able to avoid a Dynasty look like in this version (the airport hall is filled with catwalk models, come on!), and under direction of Spielberg or Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow) the soapy love story would be much better to take. And a really good lead of course...yeez, Kristofferson had better taken the role of the robot. Supple as an airplane's wing, that man.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dumb, romanticized time story...
dwpollar27 January 2011
1st watched 1/24/2011 -- 3 out of 10 (Dir- Michael Anderson): Dumb, romanticized time story about a group of dying future people who interrupt plane crashes to do some people switching to keep their race going. The problem is they screw up and leave a weapon behind that is discovered and could change the future(which wouldn't be too bad for them, i guess). The movie stars the ever-expressive Kris Kristofferson, who is a crash inspector and the former Charlie's Angel -- Cheryl Ladd, as the time traveler who's trying to fix things. The main problem with the movie, which is the case in many sub-par films, is that you don't care about the characters. Yes, it's an un-realistic premise that's hard to follow -- but this is not unlike most time travel movies. If the characters could have been developed and made relateable, then it would have been easier to care about the movie and it would have been more entertaining. Instead, it's not entertaining, and is a so-so movie experience. This movie is pretty much a waste of one hour and one half unless you have a thing for Ladd and want to get a peek at her slightly exposed breast in a scene where she wears Kristofferson's shirt in bed(this minor tease though--even for a former Charlie's Angels male teen being teased-- wasn't enough for me to like the movie, and it won't be for you either, unfortunately).
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Where have I seen that girl before?
bkoganbing1 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Somewhere in the distant future where if we think we're breathing polluted air you should see what Earth is dealing with in 3089. Some fairly healthy specimens relatively like Cheryl Ladd are treated like pampered pets because they have to do some time traveling.

This trip takes her to 1989 when Millennium came to the theaters. To keep the species going these travelers are taking trips to reported plane crashes where they remove the passengers before the crash and replace them with already dead ones from their future. When the dead ones were around they were sterile anyway, Cheryl happens to be sterile also.

There carefully prepared project goes totally awry with a trip back to a 1963 crash that is impacting on the future. A trip to 1989 where Kris Kristofferson is the National Transportation Safety Board investigator screws things up even further as Kristofferson is certain he's seen Ladd before.

The third principal player in the cast is Daniel J. Travanti a famous physicist who has an interest in time travel and has got the scent of something not right with these crashes. What Travanti does is totally mess with the future of planet Earth as Ladd knows it.

Although some have trashed Millennium I've found it to be a thought provoking movie about time traveling and about our lax attitude toward the environment which gives Ladd the future she lives in. There's also a nice performance by Robert Joy as Ladd's android in the future who's more human than Commander Data of Star Trek The Next Generation. He's got quite the wit. But in the end he's a disposable machine.

Check this one out.
23 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Worthy Effort For Its Time
tabuno18 January 2019
23 August 2011. The standard by which to judge any time travel movie is THE TIME MACHINE (1960) based on H.G. Well's classic novel. However, MILLENNIUM (1989) needs to be credited with attempting an even more ambitious storyline that incorporates the time paradox (what happens when someone goes into the past and attempts or accidentally changes it) which also evolved from a short story into a screenplay and novel by John Varley, a reputable science fiction writer in his own right and who has won the both the Hugo and Nebula Awards for science fiction. THE TIME MACHINE only briefly includes the time paradox and that is only hinted at and included just at the end of the movie for climatic effect. A better comparative movie might be BACK TO THE FUTURE, PART 2 (1989) that was released the same year as MILLENNIUM that is a family, comedy time travel movie that also contains the time paradox element that itself was consistent in its use of the paradox and incorporated some appealing visions of the future and its relative fluidity based on an intentional efforts to change the past. In some ways, BACK TO THE FUTURE and even FREQUENCY (2000) or KATE & LEOPOLD (2001) have retained their cinematic charm and integrity more so than MILLENNIUM. MILLENNIUM echoes back to the lingering 70s and 80s television genre with its stylish prime time soap operatic nature like Dynasty that seems to date MILLENNIUM and ironically freezes the movie in a period of cinematic history as does in some ways THE TIME MACHINE.

Nevertheless as a serious science fiction movie, it successfully focuses on the time paradox and plays with its convoluted nature to relatively good effect, much superior to infantile nature of the much more dated and cheesy JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF TIME (1967) or THE DAY TIME ENDED (1980), though unlike BACK TO THE FUTURE and more like THE TIME MACHINE, it ultimately ends up with the haunting suggestive climatic scene which in some ways however is much more unfocused yet supposedly uplifting by the musical score, suggestive of how, one of the classics of science fiction genre, THX-1138 (1979) ended a decade earlier.

More successful time travel movies that avoided the frozen cinematic period of its production than MILLENNIUM include the romantic comedy science fiction movie (that only indirectly suggests the time paradox in its storyline - the use of H.G. Well's original glasses that were broken and replaced) entitled TIME AFTER TIME (1979), PLANET OF THE APES (1968) that wows the audience by its climax involving its movie reveal that doesn't so much result in a paradox however, BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970) (which also avoided a time paradox and laid out a suggested time travel option only at the end of the movie for a sequel to come), LOST IN SPACE (1998) that uses the time paradox for its big impact at the end of the movie, and even one of the best contemporary time travel movies 12 MONKEYS (1995) that did incorporate the time paradox but only briefly as LOST IN SPACE but to great effect for its climatic scene in much the same way that A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001) or even A SIXTH SENSE (1999) accomplishes its revealed movie twist both considered classics in their own right.

There are also the more fanciful explorations of time fluidity consequences such as the romantic fantasy GROUNDHOG DAY (1993) and even the most current science fiction, action thriller time looping effort of SOURCE CODE (2011) which is an emotionally tinged and appealing movie that perhaps rivals or finally excels MILLENNIUM in its cinematic impact. Other time travel movie have not been as successful as either MILLENNIUM or entertaining as SOURCE CODE such as TIMELINE (2003), THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT (2004), A SOUND OF THUNDER (2005), and TIMECRIME (2007).

MILLENNIUM perhaps paved the way for subsequent enhancements to future time travel movies in the action genre, including THE FINAL COUNTDOWN (1980), THE TERMINATOR (1984), THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT (1984), and TIMECOP (1994) and one of the best contemporary uses of time travel as found in DEJA VU (2006). In some ways, MILLENNIUM for its relational and ambient impact, is comparative to THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE (2009) and the more occult-tinged PASSENGERS (2008) starring Anne Hathaway who also is involved in exploring the occurrence of a major airplane crash. MILLENNIUM, while its place in film history is frozen by its production values set in the 80s, has retained its place in time travel movies as a credit to its genre (but ironically itself stuck in time).
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Poorly written
harryplinkett1413 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It starts well: a plane crashes under mysterious circumstances. We learn that time travel or aliens might be involved. A professor who seems to have access to secret information or has a wild theory appears. The protagonist meets with a mysterious woman who suddenly disappears. Great setup! And then it goes downhill. The mystery is gone, we stop caring for the protagonists, the professor is left out of the plot and turns out not to play a meaningful role at all, and the romance doesn't go anywhere.

This film would have been much better off if it had left out all the scenes that take place in the future, focused on one plane crash only, made the professor a vital part of the plot, and made the audience care about the entire thing. The audience has to like the characters and care about their fate. But the film completely undermines the consequences of their actions by introducing the ridiculous plot line taking place in the future. The film would have been able to convey a sense of urgency had the female protagonist remained the only source of exposition.

Finally, the plot is unnecessarily convoluted and unpersuasive. This is really bad screen writing.

I give this film two stars: one for the idea, and one for the first ten minutes of the film that work.
6 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the few real "B-movies" of the '80s--and a good one.
xavrush8922 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"!
47 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An underrated movie.
Hythlodaeus11 November 2004
This movie is about an FAA plane crash investigator who finds discrepancies in a plane crash leading him a mysterious woman from the future who is rescuing people from airplanes that are about to crash. I hope I haven't given away too much but since so few people have seen this movie - maybe this will help. The interesting aspect of time travel paradoxes and an apocalyptic future in the movie is worth wading through the boring love scenes between the main characters.

If you're a die-hard sci-fi fan then you'll enjoy this movie. Otherwise, don't bother. I personally enjoyed the movie quite a bit and it's at least as good as many movies that are much more widely accepted.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Your Mother Was A Cash Register."
chow9133 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
'Millennium' still stands out after all these years as a phenomenal premise for a science fiction film. Perhaps that's why fans like me keep watching it over and over again hoping maybe this time the film makers will get it right! But of course it never changes.

Given this film's IMDb ratings, others seem to agree, this film has a phenomenal premise.

The plot: Kris Kristofferson stars as an investigator of a mysterious mid air collision with many paranormal aspects. The oddest of which is why a bombshell like Cheryl Ladd would buy him dinner and take him to bed the same night.

A Nobel Laureate is also investigating this and other mysterious plane crashes.

The explanation is simple, time travelers from 1,000 years in the future are abducting healthy people from the past fated to die in plane crashes. The plane and replacement dead bodies are then sent back into the past without causing any harmful changes to the space time continuum. Hence Cheryl Ladd is merely a femme fetal from the future attempting to clear up any inconsistencies, but inevitably causes even more time paradoxes.

You might remember how a similar premise was used in 'The Time Shifters.' This is a great story! Too bad it's executed so poorly. Aside from the lack luster production quality, FX, and acting, the devil is in the details of the story.

First off, if time traveling is causing so many time paradoxes, why are they sending back agents whom will cause even more troubles? Sure it moves the story along but it seems silly to do it? Second, many of these errors seem just plain silly. For example, a futuristic stun gun is left in the wreckage and found by Kristopherson. In order to correct this Ladd goes back in time to get the stunner but actually leaves half of it with Kristopherson and speaks to him. Hence making his more convinced of paranormal activities! Third, it's later revealed that at age 7 Kristopherson was aboard one of the hijacked flights and survived the crash. And he's just remembering this NOW? This just seems tacked on. Sure he was a kids but surely a 7 year old would remember encountering time travelers on an airplane and being the sole survivor of the crash! This is also sill as I was expecting the Nobel Laureate to be the boy from the 1960s. It would better explain why he was so obsessed with the paranormal plain crashes.

Fourth, the film does explain that they cannot visit the same time twice. Yet after realizing Kristopherson will bring his evidence to the Nobel Laureate, Ladd attempt to stop this by confronting the two of them at his house. Couldn't she just travel to before the two even met and steal the evidence? Why confront them at all? This idiots could really use a time machine.

It's also unrealistic how the passengers being taken off these planes just calmly go along with everything. In real life they'd be freaking out. "Oh my God! What this fxxx is happening? I'm not doing anything you robots tell me to!" And let's NOT forget about the shoddy sci-fi production quality. These future leaders live in a mat painting of a giant metal pyramid. And the leaders look like the Cenobites from the 'Hellraiser' series. No kidding. That's exactly what they look like.

The future robot workers look like 1950's silver faced humans playing robots. Either that or villains from 'Power Rangers.' My friends laughed these characters off the screen when they saw this.

As for the dialogue? That's truly historically memorable. Ladd insults a robot with, "Your mother was a cash register." It's comeback? "And she turned a tidy profit." This is the type of dialogue your in for throughout the 90 minutes! So many of the scenes come across as just plain awkward. Especially the lack of chemistry between lovers Cheryl Ladd and Kris Kristopherson. We almost feel as embarrassed watching this as these actors musts have felt doing this.

Another historic scene is how in the future wall mounted lasers conveniently zap away discarded cigarette butts. (much more practical than switching to the patch) However Ladd forgets this in the past and just casually throws away her butt onto her fellow dinners at a restaurant. Maybe that's why everyone's dying in the future? They're all still addicted to tobacco! Installing lasers on your walls just to get rid of your cigarette butts isn't the first sign of addiction. It's the LAST sign of addiction! It's still unclear if the wall laser aspect was intentionally funny.

The "paranormal" aspects of the crash are lack luster as a build up. Recall the great build up for sci-fi films like 'Flight of the Navigator' and 'Deja Vu.' Here, it's just not the intriguing.

In conclusion, 'Millennium' IS worth your time just for the phenomenal premise alone! However you'll probably come away frustrated like I was with how poorly it was executed.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Too late - too little.
march3061 December 2022
I'm not gonna repeat, what others already summarized.

This movie is a relict, not from the 80ies, but 70ies. It tries to expand an idea, that might work being told like that, in a book, into a movie.

Zemeckis might have made a well paced 45min episode of some anthology series from it. Spielberg might have developed a mini series of 6*45min, adding answers to questions, that do arise while watching.

The time travel logic is faulty, there don't even show up anachronisms, as ... neither time adds time-specific elements or details. It shares the SFX style of "Logans Run", elements and look of "12 Monkeys", some Murdock (from MacGyver) wheelchair weirdo and a robot (?), which looks and behaves like a cross of the tin man (Oz) and "Box" from Logans Run, but at least it doesn't get as dumb as "Flight World War II" (which is impossible, anyway).

I doesn't answer even half of the arising questions, but delivers much babbling, that tries to draw some romance, but never explains, why the future people don't simply travel or spread to a context, that grants them survival, earlier. Neither does it explain, why this robot weirdo knows more, than the others, or what these mummies in the tubes are all about.

Every single minute, you think about it, opens up another flaw in the given story-wad (you cannot call it story LINE), but also makes clear what great potential the skeleton of the given elements have.

In the wide range of time travel movies, this one falls short without any good reason, a clever script could not have fixed with a few twists.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
interesting sci-fi idea executed poorly
SnoopyStyle20 August 2015
In 1989, a passenger plane crashes and NTSB investigator Bill Smith (Kris Kristofferson) gets the case. Theoretical physicist professor Dr. Arnold Mayer shows unusual interest in the crash. The cockpit tape has a mysterious declaration "They're dead! All of them! They're burned up!" There are watches going backwards. Bill is approached by mysterious Louise Baltimore (Cheryl Ladd). They spend the night together but she disappears. He finds a mysterious device that stuns him. Then Louise and two women in strange outfits grab the device, jump through a portal and disappears.

The sci-fi concept and the story is actually quite interesting. The execution leaves a lot to be desired but the movie is still extremely memorable. The acting is below average. Kristofferson is stiff at the best of times and Cheryl Ladd is no award winner. The pacing is slow. This feels like a 70s movie despite being made in 89. The future design has some funky campy elements. The time travel idea is still interesting which makes the movie watchable.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
friends don't let friends watch films like this
Jeremias25 November 1998
Out of all the awful movies I've seen in my life, this is the one I came closest to demanding my money back for. The time-travel sequence was excruciating enough the *first* time...
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
John Varley fans will be pleased
gregsmithcts3 May 2006
If you've read the book, the film will please you.

If you haven't, then like so many others, the film will confuse you.

The screenplay is fairly accurate and follows the book quite closely.

The acting is average for KC but does not distract from the overall feeling of a story (which you should already know) being told quite well.

Fans of Cheryl will appreciate the opportunity to see her in a more dynamic role than the usual Charlies Angles style pap that you may be used to.

Overall, a pleasing adaptation of JV's story.

--greg
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the WORST sci-fi films EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
preppy-330 August 2001
I paid good money to see this back in 1989 at a first-run theatre! A friend talked me into it. I did NOT want to go shell out 5.00 for this. He said he'd pay me back if the movie sucked...so I (stupidly) agreed. Halfway through the film he handed me the 5.00 without saying a word. But there's two hours of my life gone for good! This film SUCKED!!!! Badly acted, written, directed, sub-par special effects...there's not one good thing to say about this. And seeing a large portion of the movie again through a different camera angle is inexcusable--I wanted to walk out at that point, but he wouldn't. He said "We've come this far..." Also he was driving me home so I had no choice. I have nothing against Cheryl or Kris but, really, didn't they read the script before they did the movie? Were they that hard up for money? AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good "B" Film
Criti-Size18 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
51 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great premise and underrated
davenittel19 September 2023
I saw this when it first came out on video when I was 10. It wasn't earth-shaking, but it stayed with me. I never saw it again and it was never referenced, but the whole thing stuck with me- and ultimately that's the litmus test for something special.

Bear in mind this film most certainly didn't get its first choice of actor for any role, or director, or budget, but it did a good job with what it had!

And its vision of the future is surely prophetic... Kris Kris was given a couple silly lines to say. Some parts move pretty slow by today's standards but were typical for back then. That time would've been spent doing much more world-building nowadays. Given how few people have seen it, particularly amongst younger folks, I'd say it's a prime candidate for a remake!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fun and thought-provoking very "B" movie
ktaborn20 December 1998
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.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed