Il y a plus de cent ans, une chaîne d'événements cataclysmiques a plongé la terre dans l'âge des ténèbres, détruisant la majeure partie de la civilisation.Il y a plus de cent ans, une chaîne d'événements cataclysmiques a plongé la terre dans l'âge des ténèbres, détruisant la majeure partie de la civilisation.Il y a plus de cent ans, une chaîne d'événements cataclysmiques a plongé la terre dans l'âge des ténèbres, détruisant la majeure partie de la civilisation.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Gloria Perez
- Dr. Michele Ang
- (as Gloria Mari)
Gregory Fawcett
- Hawks
- (as Greg Fawcett)
William Frederick Knight
- Admiral Hayes
- (as William Knight)
Danny Parker-Lopes
- Bartender
- (as Danny Parker)
Brien DiRito
- Nautilis Lieutenant
- (as Brien Di Rito)
Frank Uzzolino
- New Jersey Hood
- (as Frank Uzzalino)
Avis à la une
Being made in 2000 really surprised me actually, because it looks and has the same vibe as a film made in the early 90s, possibly sooner.
It reminded me very much of films that I used to watch with my Granddad from that time period too in terms of plot, the kind of "science" going on, the special effects, everything. Even the same kind of lines, some of them being cheesy. It's decent with how it uses the Sci-fi elements such as time travel, and has some nice touches here and there.
So when I thought it was made sooner than 2000, my rating would have been higher, but with a note it was a product of its time. But I guess since it isn't, it drops a little, but if you know anyone who likes films from that time period. Then it could be an enjoyable watch.
If you are expecting something more modern than what it offers, then you will be a little disappointed.
It reminded me very much of films that I used to watch with my Granddad from that time period too in terms of plot, the kind of "science" going on, the special effects, everything. Even the same kind of lines, some of them being cheesy. It's decent with how it uses the Sci-fi elements such as time travel, and has some nice touches here and there.
So when I thought it was made sooner than 2000, my rating would have been higher, but with a note it was a product of its time. But I guess since it isn't, it drops a little, but if you know anyone who likes films from that time period. Then it could be an enjoyable watch.
If you are expecting something more modern than what it offers, then you will be a little disappointed.
That other terrible submarine film 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is even worse than this rubbish, hard to believe but it's true. This one had it all, bad script, acting, casting, special effects, fight scenes and the Admiral looked to be at least ten years past retiral age, was no one younger and more plausible available? Only for lovers of very bad films.
"Crack in the World" meets "Back to the Future". An appallingly bad movie, I dare anyone else to see it to the end. I did, but I can't remember what happens. There is one interesting scene where a scientist sees himself commit suicide in the future. Don't think I've seen that before!
It's awful, difficult to tear your eyes away from.
It's like the zit on the end of the nose of the person you are talking to.
It has redeeming features, hence the 2 stars I gave.
The story line has potential and one or two of the actors make a decent attempt with the dire dialogue.
It's like the zit on the end of the nose of the person you are talking to.
It has redeeming features, hence the 2 stars I gave.
The story line has potential and one or two of the actors make a decent attempt with the dire dialogue.
I first watched Nautilus a month ago, and I must say it was OK for a film that the sci-fi channel would probably air on TV constantly. The film is basically a time-travelling film (similar to Back to the Future) that involves saving the world from a untimely destructive event using a futuristic submarine. Richard Norton was OK in terms of acting, but overall all the characters were uninteresting and completely lacking in any depth. However, I thought that the whole concept of time travel in this film was interesting, but it unfortunately fails to achieve an amazing result, and in the end the plot was boring.
I did however enjoy some elements of the film. The time-travelling submarine (probably called Nautilus) was quite interesting to look at (the CGI was quite good), and it gave the film a Jules Verne / 20'000 Leagues Under The Sea element, which I quite enjoyed. Sadly, the underwater craft is only seen in the film several times, and that disappointed me greatly. Overall, Nautilus is a sci-fi film that was interesting at first, but it became dull later on. I just wished they focused more on the submarine than fighting spies or the constant chatter about rubbish...
I did however enjoy some elements of the film. The time-travelling submarine (probably called Nautilus) was quite interesting to look at (the CGI was quite good), and it gave the film a Jules Verne / 20'000 Leagues Under The Sea element, which I quite enjoyed. Sadly, the underwater craft is only seen in the film several times, and that disappointed me greatly. Overall, Nautilus is a sci-fi film that was interesting at first, but it became dull later on. I just wished they focused more on the submarine than fighting spies or the constant chatter about rubbish...
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe submarine is a modified fuselage from a F-16 model kit.
- ConnexionsEdited from Time Under Fire (1997)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Nautilus?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 37min(97 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant