Alicia I love this movie so much

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Tango and Cash One of the worst movies I've seen in a really long time. Shockingly bad. Boring. And it's one of those time travel movies that has so many loopholes and inconsistencies and what-ifs that it makes you not care about it at all. There's a cute girl in it and a robot that zips one-liners...those are the only two redeeming factors. The pacing is awful, the plot is non-existent. The worst part about this movie though...the part that is totally unforgivable...is that you watch half the movie and then what happens...no kidding...it winds itself up again and starts allllllllllll over. It starts from the very beginning midway through. Unbelievable. The audacity!Here's my question - Who cares? Who gives a damn? I sure don't. Avoid at all costs. There is no reason to see this movie, ever. It sucks. 1/10 but deserves 0/10.

dwpollar 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).

jeffpk Millennium had production problems but stands up surprisingly well even after all this time. Additionally, the DVD version has the improved end-graphics that were originally intended for the theatrical release.This is a very ambitious script. Probably the best screen telling of a twisted-world-line story I have ever seen. Unfortunately it failed the rule of 3, a well known film adage: "Say anything important 3 times. The first time subtly. That's foreshadowing and maybe 5% of your audience will even notice. Next say it directly. That will cover the next 10% of the audience. For the last 85% of the bell curve, hit them over the head with it."Millennium explains the divergent world lines of its two main characters through the comments of Sherman the "personal robot" but fails to beat morons over the head with it.The paradox that causes the disaster at the movie's end is really only stated subtly and once, and left for the audience to reason out. No one ever says "the professor would have invented time travel if the actions of the time travelers hadn't prevented it" but all the clues are there for anyone paying attention.I agree with others that the "timequake" mechanism is a little hokey but it provided a good way to demonstrate the impending disaster in a way the audience can relate to. After all, spaceships in space make no noise, except in the movies, where they have to to get people to understand that they are moving fast. You seldom here people complain about that license and I see this, while a bit more heavy handed, as fundamentally no different.All in all an excellent script done quite well considering the sfx of the day and the limits on budget

sobpatrick I was literally rolling in the aisles laughing ...and then crying... and then laughing again. It's so bad that it's good ...and then bad again and then finally...after a long, long time (a millennium at least)... maybe good...? It was the two worst movies I've ever seen. Whatever doesn't kill you will only make you stronger. Have no fear - it's horrible - but it wont kill you. It has left me asking several questions - 1)who put money into making this? (it didn't require much) 2)Do they still have a job? 3)If so...why? 4)What bank would lend them the money to finance it? 5) Why besmirch the King of Kensington...Why? Alright this was a total mess on every level - still, it was very, very funny and for that reason I think I could recommend it, caution: in the end you might feel a bit ashamed for laughing so hard at something that wasn't meant to be laughed at. I'm so ashamed of myself!