What makes it different from others?

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

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

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.

"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!