Benutzerrezensionen

I'm not really a great fan of vampire movies, in fact there are very few that I could actually name that I like, nonetheless I rented ‘The Night Flier' because the DVD cover looked rather interesting but I still didn't expect much from this movie.

Richard Dees (Miguel Ferrer) is a journalist for a sleazy and morbid weekly publication named ‘Inside View' and is assigned to cover the story of a mysterious pilot who flies into rural airports and kills whoever is there, draining the victim of all their blood. At first Richard doesn't want the story but after seeing how big a story it could be and also wanting to put ambitious young journalist Katherine (Julie Entwistle) firmly in her place he accepts the assignment and goes in search of information on the killer he later nicknames The Night Flier.

I was very surprised by the quality of this movie. Currently I am moderately wary of Stephen King adaptations and with it also being a vampire movie my hopes were not particularly high. The first ten minutes or so of ‘The Night Flier' are fairly slow moving and rather tedious but that soon changes as ‘The Night Flier' becomes a quite adept thriller. It's not a typical vampire movie and that is probably why I enjoyed it. Instead, ‘The Night Flier' is more of a crime drama as the movie is directed towards uncovering the killer rather than stopping the killer. This makes it an interesting thriller in a way and despite some noticeably gory scenes stays away from the obvious idea of concentrating solely on the killer's activities. Tension is built up exceptionally by not concentrating too much on The Night Flier. The way the movie plays out gives it a strong purpose as it leads to a blistering finale. What we are left with is a story about a man on the edge who will do anything to get his story. The character of Richard is a bitter man, possibly socially maladjusted and one has to question whether he is in some way disturbed by all that he has witnessed in his life? He shows mental strength in his pursuit of success and seemingly fears nothing, showing no compassion or sympathy for the feelings of others yet there are still moments when he comes across as a much `softer' human being. Miguel Ferrer does an excellent job of portraying Richard and his performance in the last ten minutes of the movie is almost profound. The ending is brutal, in some ways shocking and definitely not what I expected. By the end it becomes obvious that there were two levels of horror working in this movie that came together well to leave us with ‘The Night Flier'.

There were flaws with the movie though, a couple of plot holes and many unanswered questions, though perhaps that the intent was to leave an air of mystery over the movie. Apart from Ferrer I don't think the movie was well cast as most of the other actors didn't really seem to fit the tone of the film. Furthermore, despite many great make-up effects there were also a few (one in particular) that looked awful and seemed to be totally out of place with the rest of the film. The movie was also a little slow in places and does not really get very good until about a third of the way through. These few faults though aren't really enough to harm the enjoyment and whilst this may not be to everyone's liking I personally believe it to be a well made and appealing movie. My rating for ‘The Night Flier' – 7/10.

Miguel Ferrer breathed life into the role of jaded tabloid reporter Richard Dees, who is determined to chase down the Night Flier, a serial killer who exsanguinates his victims as he travels from place to place in a small plane. Ferrer's character is a driven, self centered man who has no interest in life other than his next sensational byline.

A young female competitor brings out the worst in him, and he leaves her behind while he pursues the vampire responsible for the killings. What Richard encounters is more than he bargained for. The ending is actually better than for most of King's stories.

The acting, especially Ferrer's, is good. He also appeared in the TV miniseries adaptation of King's novel, The Stand, the same year The Night Flier was made. May Ferrer rest in peace; we will miss him.

This movie is a notch above most King films.

I own the DVD of this film and I have to say that Director Mark Pavia did an excellent job with this film. Especially with the end. The end is a great tribute to George A. Romero's style but it goes further and becomes creepier than anything I've seen in recent memory. I caught the last fifteen minutes of this film on cable one night and I was hooked. I remember thinking wow what a stylish film what the hell is this? So I researched and found out the title and bought the film.

The film suffers from a lame screenplay and some stiff acting. Miguel Ferrer was excellent, as was Dan Monahan. Michael H. Moss and Julie Entwisle were a bit stiff. All in all this is a good horror movie and the DVD transfer is sharp and the colors are precise. The sound balance is natural, without over-placement of artificial sound effects.

Watch it alone on a stormy night!

This movie was absolutely great. Of course it had some bad clips but overall, the scenery, plot, and charactors were far out the best. The ending was really strange and hard to understand but you got to love it. Oh yeah, and check out the villians face... some freaky stuff... nine out of ten!!!

You can say what you want about Stephen King-movies, but there's always just enough talent and budget involved to not make 'em look cheap. In THE NIGHT FLIER this talent mostly comes from actor Miguel Ferrer and SFX-artists Kurtzman, Nicotero & Berger. Ferrer is an often overlooked actor who most of the time only gets supporting rolls. But he'll always be edged in my memory as go-getter Bob Morton in Paul Verhoeven's ROBOCOP. Now he gets the chance to star in the leading roll in THE NIGHT FLIER, and he proves that he can carry a film. He was just perfect as the arrogant sleaze-reporter Richard Dees.

There's a mysterious figure flying in a black airplane and landing on small airports at night. He leaves behind him a trail of mutilated, blood-drained corpses. Richard Dees, reporter for the cheese & sleaze magazine "Inside View", is put on the case. So he gets in his airplane and starts following the same route as the vampiric murderer. Meantime, a rival reporter (the rookie Katherine Blair) is also assigned to write a story about it...

The plot is nothing too complicated, but it's built up nicely and even manages to be a bit scary from time to time. It all leads to the enjoyable final scenes at the last airport. The vampire is mostly kept in the dark throughout the movie, which helps to build-up a little tension. But don't worry, you'll be satisfied when you see it's ugly scary face in the end. Which brings us to the work of our beloved KNB-crew. The special make-up-effects are very decent and quite gory too. And I also liked the fact that the vampire is able to mess with peoples minds.

Okay, there are some improbabilities concerning some events in the plot, but lets not make a big deal out of it. Just take it as it is: It's a decent Stephen King-adaptation and a good vampire-movie, nothing more nothing less. So switch off the lights and fly with it.

A fun obscure Stephen King flick that at times feels like a third unofficial Tales from the Crypt movie in that there's gore, a butthole male protagonist, and hammy over-the-top characters. There's some nice effects work from the KNB EFX Group and God how I miss Miguel Ferrer he's made for this kind of role; you know playing the same butthole type in every movie he's been in since RoboCop.

Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a

50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again?

"The Night Flier" is one of the better adaptations of Stephen King I encountered so far. Although, If I didn't know it was King and I had to guess, I would assume it was Clive Barker. Both the story and its technical realization are totally average and the film leaves a very average impression, so the realistic rating would be six. However, when taking into account the budget of only a million dollars, one must acknowledge the quality of special effects that can compete with much more expensive films of the time and are very effective. The film stars Miguel Ferrer, a legend of supporting roles, who here proves that he is more than capable to carry the entire film on his shoulders. He always reminded me of Bogart and I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to see him in some more demanding roles, because I think his skills deserve much more than background roles for which he is known. And finally, I want to mention the end of the movie that, although somewhat predictable, is very powerful and striking, and for which I simply have to ignore the impression of the six I had during the entire film and raise my rating to

7/10

The movie version was childish and plain awful. The acting was terrible. Everything was overdone. The short story version was MUCH BETTER, more subtle, less blatant. The movie is just alround bad. Kids and teens may get a scare out of it, but if you're grownup and you have a few marbles and have read the short story, you won't like the movie.

Too much narrative and dialog was copied straight out of the short story. The movie could have been so much better, even as a Halloween thriller.

Believe me, the short story version is far superior. Some of you, judging from the comments, are semi-literate, so you may want to brush up on reading, then have a go at the short story.

I'm not going to say that this is a great movie, or even a great horror movie. A more appropriate way of saying it might be that it's an interesting movie. Those poor filmmakers, they're starting to run out of Stephen King novels to make into movies, so they have to turn to his short stories. Usually this means what should have been a 30 minute movie is drawn out into an hour and a half or longer. But in the case of Mark Pavia's "The Night Flier", story works because Pavia is able to expand on King's original story, and he also seems to have a bit of talent as a director.

Most people complain that Miguel Ferrer's character, Richard Dees, is too mean, or something like that. QUIT COMPLAINING PEOPLE! He's suppose to be an utterly heartless, sleazy, sorry excuse of a person. You're not suppose to feel sorry for him at all as he descends to insanity. Instead having such a terrible lead character is suppose to pose the question whose the real monster? Or, actually I think it'd be more accurate to say, whose the real hero? Is there a hero? Ferrer pulls off the performance perfectly, making a character that could make James Woods or Clint Eastwood whimper in fear. Unfortunately the rest of the cast doesn't do so well, and this pulls in the movie down a little way.

Anyway, Pavia himself has a talent for gloomy atmosphere, with his overcast, gray skies and quiet music and always just slightly-off-angle photography. He expertly subdues the beginning 2/3s of the movie and then throws a bloodbath at us. It's a very well planned and a shocking move on his part.

"The Night Flier" kicks into major gear towards the end. The final, final conclusion is a little weak, but it really couldn't have ended any other way.

Overall, the couple flaws drag "The Night Flier" down to a good but not great movie, but the really cool climax and other elements make up for it, and make it a good time. Be warned, it won't leave you feeling happy or good.

I gave this movie an extra point just for having the meanest looking, most imaginative vampire I've seen since "Nosferatu". It's not the greatest movie by any stretch of the imagination, but if you enjoy Stephen King, scary movies or just like vampires--it's worth a look.

This movie, unlike almost every other movie made from a Stephen King story, is awesome. Ferrer is perfect for the role of somewhat coldhearted tabloid reporter, Dees, and he makes the movie work in the end. There are a few cheesy things about the movie, the look of the vampire being the biggest, but it's easy to look past these little things and see the movie as it is. It's creepy and it's entertaining. I have watched this movie a number of times, and I still get excited to see it coming on cinemax or HBO or whatever.

The film's look is really done well, a lot of darkness adds to the overall feel. The places used to shoot the different airports are awesome as well, great small town look, where things like this might happen, and no one would even know. I love the movie, and I think it's probably the best King adaption yet. By the way, the word can either be adaption or adaptation...just in case anyone was wondering of my use of the word.:) 9/10

Despite a certain inevitable TV look and narrative this movie is possibly one of the best horrors of 90's. Mark Pavia delivers a well handled, gloomy and occasionally dirty atmosphere, that put far away his movie from the generally unaesthetically and untidy 90's horror films. Moreover there is a good amount of gore and a correct score.

Although the plot is not very original the movie is resolute in a rather ingenious way, the main character (fairly good Miguel Ferrer job as the tabloid journalist) is not precisely a "Good Person" and there are various perverse ideas behind the script. Very good ending, too.

This movie has to be one of the best Stephen King (sometimes good, generally average or mediocre writer) horror adaptations, only under CARRIE (8/10). Sorry, THE SHINING (6/10) is decent but it doesn't like me much.

The Night Flier is a very under rated vampire movie based on the short story from Stephen King. The movie is about a sleazy tabloid reporter hunting a serial killer who travels via airplane.

There are two main things about this movie that make it worth viewing. The first is Miguel Ferrer who kills it as an unlikeable sleaze who ends up diving deeper into insanity as he tries to get the fame he wants. The second reason is what the movie has to say about tabloids and shock journalism, as it's all interesting and leads to some great dark comedy.

My complaints is that at times it seems like a really tv movie with the way it's shot and lit and some of the supporting cast are no Miguel Ferrer, espically the boss. Still check this out it's not known and worth watching.

What is with people and needing to see everything? YouTube and magazines are stuffed with footage of real murder, real torture; and what's the attraction? Well… just to see terrible things and absorb the horror, which is messed up, and it doesn't take a genius to know that. The Night Flier certainly does.

Miguel Ferrer plays Robert Dees, a reporter from Inside Scoop, a magazine devoted to only the most morbid of news. He does it because it's a job, and like the rest of the world he gets a kick from the morbidity and he loves the blood, but he never, never, strictly never—in fear of the news perverting him—becomes personally involved, which of course gets challenged as his latest case absorbs him. Some wacko keeps flying his plane from airport to airport every night and mutilating people.

Before I even start with the hell this movie unleashed on me, I want to first mention the man behind it: Mark Pavia. This is his first major film, and he handles it as though he's directed hundreds. The pacing is perfect. Not once did I feel rushed into something or like he cut my enjoyment short, nor did anything drag for too long. And where Pavia really shines is in his uncanny ability in his frames to tease, showing so much of what we long to see, and then just barely covering it. It's like when I get a very specifically shaped gift and think I know what's inside, but never feel satisfied because the wrapper holds me one step a way from resolution.

And now, here is my evening spent with The Night Flier: first I scolded Inside Scoop and its workers for their exploitation entertainment, just as the film wanted me to, emphasizing and emphasizing how little the reporters cared about the victims. However, as the film progressed, my curiosity grew against my will about this killer… just as the reporter's did… just as the magazine's readers' did… just as the film wanted me to. And then Robert reports back about how mangled he found the victims, his boss responding, "This is great sh*t. The fatties in the supermarket line are gonna love this guy. God, I hope he kills more people," and I realized, "Oh no! I'm one of those fatties!"

That's right: The Night Flier makes you feel like a terrible person. Isn't that fun? Sure, Robert has his conflicts throughout the movie, but pretty soon I found myself not caring about him, because the conflict was in myself. For Robert, the stakes are low: if he leaves the case alone he won't have a story, and he loses a bit of pride for adhering to the killer's demands and staying away (something that could actually help him). For Katherine, the other investigator, the stakes are much higher, because she actually cares about exposing crime and making a difference in the world. She strives towards an ethical goal, and so her failure means she has failed her morality—a much more devastating stake than Robert's. And so what does The Night Flier do? Well, it teases us with Katherine as a could-have-been protagonist, then follows Robert instead, rubbing in our face we don't need Katherine and her high stakes to keep watching; we only need promise of a terrifying end. We care about Robert, but only as a tool to find the information and lead us to the action (just as we want actual reporters to do).

When The Night Flier, as if it hadn't teased us enough, finally gets to the action and the killer (who looks awesome, by the way!!) it then does something really mean: makes us care about Robert. It still reports the horror, but for the first time pities the victim, and thus really makes us feel bad. And the film ends on a very personal and sad note.

The Night Flier is a really smart film, showing a deep understanding of its interaction not with itself, but with the audience. It sadly does not go without flaws (the competition between Robert and Katherine becomes an unnecessary bore after awhile), but The Night Flier is a film aware of its every action, masterful with spectacle, and a letter to horror drenched with love… and also a lot of guilt.

I am surprised at the good reviews many people have given this movie. It's a real b-movie stinker. I love a good vampire film, but this is at the bottom of the genre.

The atmosphere was non-existent and hokey. This movie had a silly plot, bad acting, no special effects, and no brooding Vampire mood to speak of (as the box suggests).

If you like a lot of senseless gore, with no real plot, this movie may be for you. Bur if you're looking for a good Vampire flick, you'll be sorely disappointed. This is straight to video garbage.

Richard Dees is a reporter and he is a vampire because he works for a tabloid and earns his living by writing lurid stories and taking sordid pictures. He's got a despicable job and he is getting sick of it. Dwight Renfield is the Night Flier and he is a vampire too, but he is a "real" one – an evil and supernatural creature feeding itself on humans. He flies from one airfield to another across the U.S. on a black, private aeroplane. Of course he always leaves bloodless corpses behind him and Dees ends up chasing him with his tape recorder and camera. When they eventually meet, the vampire doesn't really feel like killing one of his kind, and he is ready to let him go. Yet Dees proves his curiosity will always make him chase people like the Night Flier and he will bitterly regret it. At the end of the film, everybody will see and remember Richard Dees as what he really was, that is to say a nasty character living on people's suffering. Well, this film is a great B-movie. The story is exciting, Miguel Ferrer is excellent and the film has no Hollywood-like happy ending. I strongly recommend it to anyone looking for a nice thrill and a few gallons of blood.

I found this gem late and may I say it was worth the digging. I was delightfully surprised to find it was not another vampire movie, it was way better. Like none of that twilight nonsense but a good solid story and a way more believable vampire. Let's just say it was very gripping and I did not roll my eyes once!

I cannot believe the positive comments for this terrible piece of straight-to-video bargain bin trash. I have honestly never seen such poor acting in a movie for a good long time. Did anyone actually see the Boom microphone that pops down onto the screen about 3 times during the movie, this film could fill one of those movie bloopers books.

What is so scary about a rubber vampire who flies a plane and wears a £1.99 cape?.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS