UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Action >

Time Under Fire

Time Under Fire (1997)

November. 12,1997
|
3.6
| Action Science Fiction

A US submarine runs into a time rift. A special unit goes on a mission to see what's on the other side. They find themselves in an alternate dystopian America, now a one-man dictatorship. They decide to help the rebels.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Tacticalin
1997/11/12

An absolute waste of money

More
filippaberry84
1997/11/13

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

More
Brenda
1997/11/14

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

More
Jenni Devyn
1997/11/15

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

More
entlim-47366
1997/11/16

This is a complete turkey of a movie. Complete rip off of other movies.. footage of land chase ripped from BARB WIRE, the warehouse still has HAMMERHEAD on the front, military uniforms ripped from V, and an evil Emperor rip off from Star Wars... Completely predictable, Complete crap... Avoid ,a total waste....

More
dromasca
1997/11/17

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.

More
darkmoonnetwork375
1997/11/18

I know it is an old movie and maybe this comment is out of date but here goes anyway.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!

More
stimpy-13
1997/11/19

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.

More