Millennium Actress

Millennium Actress

Documentary filmmaker Genya Tachibana has tracked down the legendary actress Chiyoko Fujiwara, who mysteriously vanished at the height of her career. When he presents her with a key she had lost and thought was gone forever, yhe filmmaker could not have imagined that it would not only unlock the long-held secrets of Chiyoko’s life... but also his own.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:87 minutes
  • Release:2001
  • Language:Japanese,English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:snow,   surrealism,   cameraman,  

A TV interviewer and his cameraman meet a former actress and travel through her memories and career. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Millennium Actress torrent reviews

Khayra B (jp) wrote: Just rewatched it for the 5th time.

Nolan S (nl) wrote: This film is near perfect. The script was amazing, the score was phenomenal, and the cinematography was beautiful. Jake Gyllenhaal gave one of the most captivating and under-rated performances in film history. My eyes were glued to the screen for the entire two hour runtime. There was never a moment when this film dragged. Every scene was written and shot to perfection. Nightcrawler is one of the best Crime-Thrillers out there, and I would highly recommend this movie.

Stuart P (gb) wrote: A tough film and an interesting character study. It's not particularly involving though, and keeping in the company of such an unlikeable and dishonest character for 90 minutes is not everyone's cup of tea.

william m (es) wrote: Lots of ambition that ends up more mess than masterpiece.

Potter G (es) wrote: Even those who are not familiar with the band will fall in love with this flawless and uplifting documentary; Beyond The Lighted Stage is as lovely as it gets.

Quincy J (br) wrote: One of the better ones coming from Kevin smith. I feel it was not meant to scare or thrill. Its more of a reminder of a reality that still exists today. In other words don't get too comfortable..

Alex K (au) wrote: My Favorite Film Is 1941's Citizen Kane.

Chris C (mx) wrote: Yes... I did just give "Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster" the score it says I did. You may be thinking, "WTF!? Is it really that good?" Short answer: Dear God No. Quite the opposite. This is movie is one of the most beloved genre "So bad it's good."So, the story goes as follows... aliens in some of the worst movie make-up (which consists of ears and a baldcap) I have ever seen want to invade earth, and steal it's women for breeding. You see, there are no more women on their planet, save for the evil princess... who's strongly implied to be a lesbian. I didn't make any of that up.Flash foward to NASA, where manly scientist Adam Steel (oh yeah... he's that manly) and his assistant Karen, announced that they would be sending an up and coming colonel in space. But what the public doesn't know is that Frank is actually an android made from a combination of human and robot parts (get it...? Frank...? Frankenstein...? *laff*). Anyway, Frank is shot into space to a very groovy mid-sixties tune, then shot down by aliens, only to land in Puerto Rico, where the aliens have started collecting women. He then is turned into a mindless beast who scours the Earth aimlessly. He's also very badly burned, making him look like... A MONSTER!!! Nope, still not making anything up.So, the aliens start harvesting Earth women, at least the ones not being scared by Frank the Monster. And none of them put up a fight. Hell, they almost get on the spaceship willingly. Which actually (or should I say "unfortunately?") was a cultural thing. In the 50's/early 60's, i.e. pre-feminist movement, women were raised to believe they were weak, and not to be able to defend themselves. That's how Richard Speck could claim so many victims when he essentially was just one man with a knife. But I digress. The aliens kidnap the Earth's women while they sunbathe in polka-dotted bikinis, and go what one can assume to be "Latin dancing" at a beach house.Meanwhile, Adam and Karen are looking for Frank. The army threatens to dispatch him, but Karen has developed feelings for Frank, and Adam isn't about to let 10 years of hard work go up in smoke. Then they hop on a moped, and ride around some Puerto Rican town to the least appropriate "We need to save the day!" music ever. Seriously, was the "Girl From Ipanema" sound alike really the best choice of score? Bossa Nova really hampers the drama. Yeah, that was also one of the filler scenes in this movie, and at least they filmed Puerto Rico on location. Sure they could have used that money for talented actors, or special effects, or pretty much anything. But, they didn't... the acting sucks, and they use enough stock footage to make Ed Wood, and the guys who do those 5 Hour Energy drink commercials blush. I'm pretty sure this movie was made for the sole purpose of the crew getting a free trip to Puerto Rico.So... anyway... Karen gets kidnapped by the aliens, and Adam, whom she has since fallen for because he's so damn manly (Oh yeah... Adam Steel, baby), calls the Air Force to save her. The Air Force played by stock footage of The Army. They do find Frank, and reprogram him to be good. He still can't talk, as if he did, he wouldn't be "Frankenstein" enough. Karen's been kidnapped, and given to the evil lesbian space princess's pet Mull the Space Monster... who looks like someone wearing a bad Wookie costume with a cheap Halloween mask. You can probably guess who saves Karen from the Space Monster. Seriously, the title's a fuckin' spoiler!So, Frank kills Mull with a laser, and kills the aliens, also with a laser. He then sacrifices his android life to save the day when they try to escape. And the film ends with the same filler "Look! This is actually Puerto Rico!" scenes that had been peppering through the entire film, set to the same mid-sixties "hip" music that had been the soundtrack.This movie is bad sci-fi at it's peak. It's quality is so bad, it looks like something from a decade earlier. Hell, even the opening the credits look phoned in! The opening credits, where all you have to do is show the movie's name, and a couple of people who made it! And not have them shake around, and disappear after a second! At least the closing credits are a little more... professional I suppose is the right word. But considering that it's basically more shots of the streets set to soothing Bossa Nova music, I suggestion we give the movie a more fitting title..."Fuck You, Guys: We Got a Free Trip to Puerto Rico by Shitting out a Monster Movie"And by god... I'm glad they did. Because the by-production of their paid vacation was cinema cheese gold.

Greg W (us) wrote: except title this bares no resemblence to the 1937 pic with the same title

Ted W (mx) wrote: I realize most people fear watching a silent movie, let alone something in black & white. It is a different art form than the cinema we know today. I would urge you, however, to take a chance. Sure the morals are dated (and that's a bit sad in and of itself) but when you let yourself follow these characters and invest into their lives you will not be disappointed. Add to that a crackling climax atop a frozen river without stunt doubles (amazing) you have two hours of solid entertainment. For fans of the Cat & The Canary, Creighton Hale makes an early stab at his nebbish hero in this movie playing the professor.

RC K (jp) wrote: Defiance of expectation. I'd say that's the basis of appreciation of a piece of art, but there's too much to be found in satisfaction of expectation. Still, it's the basis for a kind of appreciation, naturally the more surprising variety, or at least unexpected. All of us go in to movies or music with the expectation that some element tells us exactly what we should expect, or at least gives us a vague idea. Some of us use a knowledge base that informs us based on a director, producer or other behind-the-scenes element. Some go from trailers, actors, themes, hunches from general experience of movie going, history, descriptions from others, comparisons made and any number of other sources. Sometimes it's bang-on reliable--few of us who know the name "Michael Bay" are ever surprised by a film that comes out with his name attached as director. Sometimes this is a pleasing comfort, sometimes a stimulus to avoid the end product like nothing else. I have a general wariness of French directors with reputations and Criterion releases. I've yet to see any Godard or Truffaut, for instance. This brings us to Louis Malle, who...quite honestly I had completely misplaced, in terms of his filmography.Atlantic City is one of Malle's films made after a move to the United States. Lou (Burt Lancaster) is a washed up old hood in that famed New Jersey gambling town, acting as servant to a woman with more money than he, Grace (Kate Reid), who met Lou and his pal "Cookie" Pinza in the city years ago. That marriage and her subsequent entry into a beauty contest have left her with the feeling that she is, or should be, a pampered princess. Across the way from Lou is Sally (Susan Sarandon), from Saskatchewan, who is attempting to work her way up to a casino dealer. Unfortunately for the both of them--or fortunately, for Lou, who harbors a voyeuristic yearning for Sally--her estranged husband, Dave (Robert Joy) and the woman he ran off with, Chrissie (Hollis McClaren), appear in Atlantic City carrying a stolen pound of cocaine and seeking help from Sally.I realized in looking through Malle's work that I had no idea what his filmography consisted of. This is ridiculous for a number of reasons, and interesting for a handful more. First, my aversion to French filmmakers stems from an Italian filmmaker. This isn't due to any confusion between the countries or in which names come from which country or anything more than a mental association that developed behind the scenes. Fellini's Satyricon is one of a handful of films I simply could not tolerate. Finding that Pauline Kael hated it makes me feel a little bit better but does not really resolve my embarrassment over the nonsensical associations I made. It's not totally out of bounds--the logic went: Fellini was an arthouse director, a renowned one in circles that appreciate such films; Satyricon is a well-liked work of his; Fellini is associated with Italian Neorealism; Italian Neorealism is seen as part of the impetus behind the French New Wave; Malle is associated with the French New Wave, having made films in the same time frame and using some elements from it. This isn't really an excuse, just symbolic of the mess of my understanding of arthouse film in the 60s and 70s.* Sorting this out has led me toward Malle's other films, a number of which I would really like to see, as well as one that may finally provide the key to a question amongst friends: Jeremy Irons seems to be pretty awesome, but what on earth ever told us this? His filmography is beyond checkered and is not like that of some other respectable actors where it was solid until a certain point.But I digress. Severely.There was a point to that digression, though. The point is this: I expected to have a strangely half-intolerably slow or ponderous, possibly very internal or overly symbolic film filtered through well-known American actors, or techniques from such films shoehorned in to a more "normal" one, or some combination thereof. Instead, I got the elements of La Nouvelle Vague in an otherwise recognizable film. At least, my understanding of them. It was a pleasant surprise in this respect.I am familiar with Burt Lancaster as a square-jawed man's man-type actor, but have seen him in nothing but The Professionals up to this point. His performance is fantastic, sliding into the necessary roles for any given emotional motivation in Lou's character throughout. He shifts whenever he enters Grace's presence, whatever that presence means to him at that time, and when he sees the chance to win over the woman he desires, he transforms, but believably, into a slick and suave man of culture--or at least the kind with money and influence. It feels like a perfect revival of the young Lou that we never actually get a chance to see. A guy who uses money or knows how to use it, saw it used, to achieve goals without necessarily holding the culture that he conveys. When he finally achieves almost everything he can think of, the chance to prove he finally "made it" to all his old friends--he falls into a laughable-in-a-saw-way braggart. It's not obnoxious so much as sad, we can see that this is what he wanted to be for all his life, and no one else particularly cares, but he acts as though they not only should, but do.Sally is caught up in him and between her past with Dave and his current state. Make no mistake: Dave is, to quote Sally herself, "a shit." There's no real way around it. He uses everyone around him, and manipulates everything he can find, but is also too stupid to realize that his skills are imperfect and do not work on everyone. For Sally, though, it's bouncing between the well-intentioned manipulator and the utterly selfish one, slowly tearing down the miserable existence she has set out for herself, which is not much to be proud of, but is still something compared to what it could be, and moving along the road to what she does want for herself.What's fascinating about the film and instantly noticeable as peculiar when compared to the average American-made movie is the slim, trim soundtrack. There's music, to be sure, but most of the film carries those traditions of the aforementioned schools of film-making: very little music except where legitimately present in a scene, and lots of natural light and sound. The absence of music never feels empty or claustrophobic, it just conveys a solid reality to all the scenes, helped along by a muddled set of characters who do not all seem to be pushing a pre-determined plot toward a pre-determined outcome.I've mentioned before the tendency of people to decry sports films as having obvious endings--but they simply are binary. The team/athelete wins, or loses, most likely. And here, as with most films, we have the major options of primarily happy or primarily sad ending. Which of these it is does not matter so much as the believability of reaching it, whether the steps and the characters seem to deserve this ending--not morally, but in reflection of the actions they take on their journey toward it; does the work put in by these characters justify their reward, punishment, or normalized and continued existence?This time, it most certainly does. It's a good ending, happy or otherwise--and I think those descriptions would be imperfect and debated anyway.*I am also well aware that many of those leaps actually do not follow. Satyricon is hardly indicative of Italian neorealism, after all.