I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Fantastic!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

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

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...

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?