Sfida contro il tempo

I love Bryan Cranston; this is easily the worst film he has ever been involved in, but it was not his fault. The writers were incompetent and the storyline is idiotic. I hate bad science sci-fi, and this is one of the worst ever. It will, undoubtedly, be great fodder for a MST 3000 type show in the future. We are expected to believe a car chase scene that is set 80 years in the future with antique cars. Please. I think those futuristic uniforms were a bit too tight around the neck and cut off circulation to the brain. Dialogue like "I do not care blah blah blah.." instead of "I don't care?" Please. Learn how to write. The film is unintentionally hilarious in spots with a guy from Union City as a future rebel.There are no rebels from Union City; other than Babe DeSantis. I would rather watch a rerun of Pop Novotny's game with North Bergen that we won 13-12 that this turkey.

I know it is an old movie and maybe this comment is out of date but here goes anyway. A waste of time and it pains me to see this sad imitation of Ian McDiarmid's portrayal of Emperor Palpatine in 'Return of the Jedi'. Lousy plot, awesomely horrible acting, and no visual effects to make it worth watching. I had more fun sitting through 'Red Sonja' and 'Hercules Goes to New York'. I would much rather sit through a whole evening of Danielle Steel movies than watch this movie ever again. We have here yet another movie which should never have been made. Just like the new King Arthur movie. Although the latter wasn't even half as bad as this movie. Whatever you do, do NOT see this!

It's not that bad of a movie I liked it. granted it is poorly done and the acting isn't so great. for a cheap B-movie the special effects aren't bad. and for a Roger Corman movie it's better than some of his he's either produced or ex-produced. you want to see a BAD MOVIE? rent CLUB VAMPIRE you will laugh till you cry the movie is so bad. John Savage is in it an it's 10 times worse than this. anyways it was different the plot has been done before an better and the ending is predictable. Jeff Fahey isn't one of the most talented actors of our time to begin with. he's OK but he need to go back to acting school. out of five a 2 and a half which is fair. I have seen better movies true but i have seen worse also.

Drab, dreary and a total waste of my time. The plot is incomprehensible (so don't think about it too much). The acting is odd and wooden - I would have sworn that they were all professional body builders trying their luck at acting, but that might be an insult to body builders. There are no interesting special effects to redeem this disaster, but lots of fires, explosions, a gratuitous sex scene, etc. The only thing that caught my attention was that it takes place after a war between the US and Iraq that somehow goes nuclear...hmmm. Is Roger Corman psychic? Let's hope that "Iraq" was just a lucky choice for Corman and that the rest of his scenario doesn't come true.

Without being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clichés, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.