Nightflyer

As far as low-budget, sci-fi horror goes, Nightflyers is definitely above the fray. I can't say enough about Catherine Mary Stewarts character: beautiful, courageous, mysterious and intelligent. Her performance also lists as a cut above the average. Sure there are deficiencies in the script; but I thought that Nightflyers was an ambitious little entry into the sci-fi film market and definitely worth the effort. I am anxiously awaiting a potential DVD release.

Just for the record, I haven't read the novella this is based on, though I've heard it's much better than this movie. As a movie alone, it's a very fun sci-fi thriller that looks downright incredible. It's some of the best sci-fi movie set design I've seen, and the movie doesn't waste a centimeter. The story is basically about the implications of telekinesis, and uses the Alien "trapped-onboard-a-spaceship-with-malignant-force" set-up to exploit it (with much "sturm und drang"). The film has very well-drawn characters, like the loose-cannon telekinetic (Michael Des Barres), the wistful, elderly professor (John Standing) whose search for the mythical Volkind (itself a pity case from his colleagues) is the reason for the mission, and especially Royd (Michael Preed), whose unique, reclusive existence on the ship offers the main thrust of the story. Highly recommended for fans of sci-fi and obscure cinema.

Having recently revisited George RR Martin's haunting and intelligent novella NIghtflyers in his anthology Dreamsongs, I decided to finally put in the effort to find a copy of this mostly unknown film adaptation. I didn't even have to read the few reviews out there to know it most likely was not going to be fantastic; the fact that it has never been released on DVD combined with the author's warning about the quality of this film was enough of a hint towards what to expect. Still, I went in with a open mind and hoped to enjoy a probably mediocre rendition of a great novella. And there were good parts to it; that classic atmosphere of loneliness that only 80's sci-fi seems have to it, aided by a enjoyably camp and moody synthesizer score. And the very few scenes that used dialog lifted straight from George's novel got across a tiny bit of the engrossing story and character of the novella. Other than that, the story and characters get mostly butchered, sad to say. The story becomes both extremely simplified and extremely convoluted, and the strange editing doesn't help. A staggered set-up quickly dissolves from intro into a prolonged climax that takes up the time that could have been used for a proper second act, destroying the chance for any real character to develop. And the films ending itself is perhaps the greatest disservice to the novella it was based on, being mostly non-sensical and maintaining only the smallest resemblance to the original story. So yes, not a great movie by any stretch, not even a good movie. And certainly not a good adaptation. But still, I'm glad I saw it.

Seeing Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince in a space suit made it all worthwhile.

Why the heck are high-tech spacecraft so misty in the interior!? Apparently, the humidity controls on the ship's air conditioning system were set up to maximum; either that or the filmmakers were trying to rip off Alien. Other than the spectre of mist, the action and the acting was pretty lacking and even grinded down to a halt at times. From the laser beam shooting out the side of the gun (bad, bad editing) to the cornball scenes of the headless, decapitated body choking someone, this movie is filled with flaws, but the worst flaw was the awful mist which seems to condense on my television.

I need to comment on this movie since reading all of the other comments and knowing how many times I've seen this movie...I should say something. First, I read the book after I saw the movie and was surprised by the different direction the movie took. Most of the names were changed, some of the characters themselves were totally different that described in the novella. Having seen the movie before reading the book, however, I thought it was an interesting story. Getting past the sets, editing, script and continuity issues, I saw interesting character study and flow of events. At least we got a little glimpse of some of the character's pasts, if we listened closely to some of the sometimes rambling conversation, and saw briefly into their personal lives...especially Royd Erris and Jon Winderman. When I look at the movie, I try to get into the meat of it ...as if it was really happening at that moment. What were they thinking, experiencing. What kind of emotional bond was going on between some of the characters. However, after I read the book, I thought the movie could have been so much better. I gave the movie an 8 out of 10 for a great attempt at creating the mood of the characters and atmosphere of the Nightflyer described in George R.R. Martin's awesome short story. I found the book at an old used bookstore 600 miles form my house. I believe you can get in online. Read it!