The Cover for the DVD shows a very impressive Submarine. Unfortunately, the sub in the movie is a very different and extremely inferior sub, nothing like the cover picture. Even though this is a sub movie, 98% of the action take place between humans far from the sub. No Monsters, No Fantasy Elements, just mid 90's direct to video really bad action, with less than stellar players. If this movie had just added some good CGI stuff, it would have been much better. This movie has an ecological message to it, and while important, always brings a movie down. And of course, even though the name of the movie is Nautilus and is about a sub, there is zero connection between it, and the writings of Jules Verne. (What we need are some direct to video/DVD Captain Nemo movies that hold no relation to the books, other than the character and his sub, fighting lots of monsters and stuff.) This movie was less than stellar, but I did manage to make it all the through with out turning it off. The actors failed, but the story did make me want to see how it ended.
15 Reviews
Car crash film
TepesTheImpaler14 November 2018
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.
Norton keeps the movie afloat.
tarbosh220005 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
When a big new drilling station named Prometheus is set to open out in the middle of the ocean, its main developer, Basim (Eschbach) hires Jack Harris (Norton) to be its head of security. This is needed because an eco-terrorist group named Equinox is threatening violent tactics to shut it down, because they believe it's not environmentally friendly. Just as Harris is dealing with these troublemakers, they get a message from the future in the form of a Star Wars-like hologram. Captain Brin (Kriesa) and his daughter Ariel (Wolfe) are planning to travel back in time on their submarine, the Nautilus, to stop the drilling station. They believe it will start a chain of events that will lead to catastrophic destruction and basically the end of the world. The developers, along with Harris, are skeptical, but the future-people are insistent. What then follows is a battle of wills and ideologies. Who will prevail? We can give you the bottom line on this one right away: the scenes with Richard Norton are worthwhile and entertaining. The scenes he does not appear in are boring and reach sloggish proportions. We could just end the review there, but we'll provide a few more of our humble thoughts. While Nautilus is not fast-paced, and is fairly typical of the DTV dreck that cluttered up the 2000's, it actually wasn't quite as bad as we were expecting it to be. We thought is was going to be an out-and-out sub slog, and were pleasantly surprised to find out there are some other elements mixed in.
For example, the opening of the movie is decent, especially the introduction to Harris, Norton's character. The movie has a few mildly interesting ideas, but sadly not enough to propel a 90 minute feature along like the cinematic sub that it is. As usual for the B-movies of this time, there are plenty of actors that look like bigger names (but aren't), such as Brin, who looks like Sam Neill. There are scenes of actors calling out coordinates, which always make for thrilling viewing, and a nice dose of environmentalist claptrap along the way. And don't forget the awkwardly-placed stock footage. But Richard Norton is charming as ever, and he singlehandedly keeps this movie from being a total flop. Take him out of the equation, and this movie would be unwatchably horrid. We do, however, give it credit for having the ORIGINAL Prometheus (2012).
Another name in the cast besides Norton would have helped...Don Swayze, Robert Davi, Matthias Hues, somebody. At least in his previous movie, Surface to Air (1998), director McDonald had Michael Madsen and Chad McQueen. Here, it's just Norton. But the power of Norton keeps the movie afloat. Get it? Afloat? Meh, just don't see it. (Unless you're a really big Norton fan).
For more action insanity, drop by: www.comeuppancereviews.com
For example, the opening of the movie is decent, especially the introduction to Harris, Norton's character. The movie has a few mildly interesting ideas, but sadly not enough to propel a 90 minute feature along like the cinematic sub that it is. As usual for the B-movies of this time, there are plenty of actors that look like bigger names (but aren't), such as Brin, who looks like Sam Neill. There are scenes of actors calling out coordinates, which always make for thrilling viewing, and a nice dose of environmentalist claptrap along the way. And don't forget the awkwardly-placed stock footage. But Richard Norton is charming as ever, and he singlehandedly keeps this movie from being a total flop. Take him out of the equation, and this movie would be unwatchably horrid. We do, however, give it credit for having the ORIGINAL Prometheus (2012).
Another name in the cast besides Norton would have helped...Don Swayze, Robert Davi, Matthias Hues, somebody. At least in his previous movie, Surface to Air (1998), director McDonald had Michael Madsen and Chad McQueen. Here, it's just Norton. But the power of Norton keeps the movie afloat. Get it? Afloat? Meh, just don't see it. (Unless you're a really big Norton fan).
For more action insanity, drop by: www.comeuppancereviews.com
Nautilus 1998-1999. At least it will seem that way.
kennewickman112 March 2000
Nautilus is, without a doubt, going to be seen in the very near future on MST3K. Definitely one of the worst movies ever made. IF you can stay awake throughout the entire movie, you will be treated to the worst acting, the worst directing, the worst cast and the worst dialogue to come out of, wherever, in a long, long time. Give yourself a treat...Go see Planet of the Apes for the tenth time, rather than waste your time and money on this dribble.
Candidate for worst movie of the year
chas-3028 September 1999
"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!
Soo bad, you'll laugh!
rafaelneville2 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Actually I could have given this movie a very high rating, given, it makes you laugh a lot, it's so badly done and everything is so fake, you actually laugh at all this. And that might deserve a higher rating.
The very story on it's own is clearly the outcome of a combination of wrongly mixed drugs.
Various stories run along the main plot. But first things first, the basics: A submarine time-machine that runs on diamonds, travels to the past to stop a drilling rig of inducing a worldwide cataclysm by perforating the mantle and destabilizing the pressure, making everything go kaboom.
The movie starts with a diamond theft in the future where apparently all cars are exactly the same as in the 70's. The diamond burglars manage to get away from the police that followed them in an Ice- cream van or something alike, very shabby indeed. I never knew those vans where more powerful than police cars. Anyway, they just reach the beach and enter the sea and keep on swimming until they reach the submarine. This is when the movie starts for real! Well, so they say...
The main character is like a fusion of MacGyver and Michael Knight. He is introduced rescuing a kidnapped guy, killing the first batch on the main floor with guns, and later on, on the first floor with a crossbow and a pen as an arrow, apparently because he doesn't want to be heard (surely the mass shooting downstairs went unnoticed to the ears of the kidnappers).
The eco-terrorists have clearly no budget and have to assault the rig in a small Zodiak. Apparently they spent it all on the guns. Magic guns BTW that kill before even shooting, as can be seen when they enter the room full of machines with flashing buttons and pseudo-scientists that have been told to move their hands and touch buttons to appear more professional and scientific. Of the Nautilus crew assaulting the rig, I wont talk, that must be seen by itself.
Not to forget the overtly sassy footage of a NASA rocket that now is a missile that intercepts F-18's.
The very story on it's own is clearly the outcome of a combination of wrongly mixed drugs.
Various stories run along the main plot. But first things first, the basics: A submarine time-machine that runs on diamonds, travels to the past to stop a drilling rig of inducing a worldwide cataclysm by perforating the mantle and destabilizing the pressure, making everything go kaboom.
The movie starts with a diamond theft in the future where apparently all cars are exactly the same as in the 70's. The diamond burglars manage to get away from the police that followed them in an Ice- cream van or something alike, very shabby indeed. I never knew those vans where more powerful than police cars. Anyway, they just reach the beach and enter the sea and keep on swimming until they reach the submarine. This is when the movie starts for real! Well, so they say...
The main character is like a fusion of MacGyver and Michael Knight. He is introduced rescuing a kidnapped guy, killing the first batch on the main floor with guns, and later on, on the first floor with a crossbow and a pen as an arrow, apparently because he doesn't want to be heard (surely the mass shooting downstairs went unnoticed to the ears of the kidnappers).
The eco-terrorists have clearly no budget and have to assault the rig in a small Zodiak. Apparently they spent it all on the guns. Magic guns BTW that kill before even shooting, as can be seen when they enter the room full of machines with flashing buttons and pseudo-scientists that have been told to move their hands and touch buttons to appear more professional and scientific. Of the Nautilus crew assaulting the rig, I wont talk, that must be seen by itself.
Not to forget the overtly sassy footage of a NASA rocket that now is a missile that intercepts F-18's.
Nostalgia Made Me Like It More
icocleric20 April 2022
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.
Clip from Barb Wire
info-facebook7 April 2022
Only watched a few minutes - stopped once I realised they were reusing car chase footage from the 1996 movie Barb Wire. The fact that they resort to that kind of thing so early in the movie, convinced me that it wouldn't be worth watching any more... And yes I do realise what a nerd that makes me for spotting the duplication :)
Lame sci-fi wasting a great martial artist
Leofwine_draca10 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Although I'm a huge fan of Australian martial artist Richard Norton, I feel that this cheap science fiction film hardly showcases him at his best. Instead it's a dead-headed B-movie that copies the best bits of DIE HARD and THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT, showing how the crew of a futuristic submarine travel back to the present day after an apocalypse, attempting to prevent the course of history through violence.
It sounds largely interesting but in terms of execution this isn't. Most of the running time is made up of sub-par action on a ship, but UNDER SIEGE is ten times better than this. The action is frequent but lightweight, and Mr. Norton doesn't even get to show off his superior fighting skills, thanks to the lacklustre direction. The whole thing looks and smells cheap, with lousy acting from the supporting cast and lame dialogue. I'd skip it.
It sounds largely interesting but in terms of execution this isn't. Most of the running time is made up of sub-par action on a ship, but UNDER SIEGE is ten times better than this. The action is frequent but lightweight, and Mr. Norton doesn't even get to show off his superior fighting skills, thanks to the lacklustre direction. The whole thing looks and smells cheap, with lousy acting from the supporting cast and lame dialogue. I'd skip it.
Nautilus
CinemaSerf21 May 2023
Sometimes it is just better not to have an idea at all, rather than to create some sort of hybrid from other people's. This film takes a bit of HG Wells, a bit of "Dr. Who", a load of water, some C-listers and a script straight out of "Janet & John" then tacks it onto some very dated special effects. Add a soupçon of megalomania and you have a sci-fi adventure that is light on just about everything. The plot is just so very, very weak - it reminded me a little of that rotten but entertaining "Return of Captain Nemo" movie from 1978, just without any of the fun or charm. These guys are serious about this, and that possibly makes it worse. This genre is very easy to do badly, director Rodney McDonald excelled...
Not as bad as 30,000 leagues but very close.
plan991 March 2022
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.
Richard Norton Sci-Fi Action!
wgg-113 November 2001
Richard Norton proves again in "Nautilus" that he ranks among the top actors in action movies. He plays a mercenary with a sense of humor, first introduced in the corridors of a seedy South American hotel as he darts the fists and the gunfire of his adversaries. The scene is played effectively with a contemporary Indiana Jones tone, and it's a swift intro to the more expansive adventure that follows. Norton's mercenary gets hired to head security on an oceanic rig that tracks a mysterious vessel on its radar. The vessel is a time-traveling sub that returns to circa 2000 to stop a global environmental collapse and to inform the rig's well-meaning scientist (Hannes Jaenecke) about the dangers of his actions to the future. "Nautilus" is fast-paced, diverting fun, and with an enjoyable "wink" to his audience, Norton takes his fans on an a cruise that's consistently a cool ride. "Nautilus" is a must-have DVD for Sci Fi devotees and action fans.
Nice effort with nice productions values.
ceejay-728 March 2000
Made for very little money, NAUTILUS is actually a fun science-fiction film combining elements from 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, CRACK IN THE WORLD and DIE HARD. On the level of a Roger Corman styled flick, the film has impressive productions values and some very nice miniature work. Richard Norton of the Jackie Chan films is a good, athletic hero and as a middle of the week video rental, this flick delivers the goods in an unpretentious way.
Action packed romp through time!
remnantsofreason2 June 2005
While Nautilus may not have had the budget of some of the larger Hollywood projects, they story, action, and acting of the main stars propels this above most attempts at Sci-Fi cinema released. While much of the attention centers around the martial arts prowess of Richard Norton, attention needs to be placed on the actor that portrayed Raoul, the leader of the Eco-terrorism group Equinox. Now known as the host for popular shows such as Shop till you Drop and Outback Jack, Roberto shines in his role here as a man with a mission to save the planet. Showing acerbic wit and physical dexterity, his screen time was a highlight of this film.
Action, Explosions, Intrigue, Time Travel, Martial Arts, what more could a movie buff ask for?
Action, Explosions, Intrigue, Time Travel, Martial Arts, what more could a movie buff ask for?
Interesting, but dull
law-jordan2 August 2009
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...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
