Nightfall

There may be worse films, but I've never seen them. When I saw this movie in the theater the ticket seller actually warned me that a lot of people didn't like it and that I could have my money back if I left in the first 15 minutes.

Unfortunately I watched the whole thing, thinking to myself that it just *had* to get better. It didn't.

The only way that I'd watch this movie again is if my other choice was bamboo under the finger nails.

I actually paid money to see this in its mercifully brief theatrical release in 1988. The (tiny) audience had fun ad libbing dialogue that was much better than that provided the hapless actors. The film is bad in so many ways that it is difficult to pick out the worst element. Was it the art direction? The acting? The dialogue? The cinematography? The costumes? The plot? The editing? The music? In the end I think the worst thing is that it will probably insure that no decent film will ever be made of Asimov's "Nightfall".

The good doctor wrote that he had never seen the movie, and that he had nothing to do with it. This probably added a couple of years to Asimov's life.

I can only say that the other reviewers here at IMDb have been far too generous. This film is worse than you can imagine.

Oh, the humanity!

There must've been a budget for this, but it must've been used for advertising! The sets are boring, akin to filming in someone's backyard with no attention to detail. The acting? Well, it's just not really. Continuity of story? Must've taken a vacation that day. Were the filmmakers ambitious? Maybe, but it was a heartless attempt to tell a story with film.

It's not Asimov's fault, rather these film-makers lacked vision.

The other reviews here I can truly say are valid, since I sat through this turkey in the theater, hoping desperately for it to get better. I mean, it had to didn't it? Alas, it never did...

Skip it, go watch the Georgio Moroder version of Metropolis again instead... Or read Issac's story, either way you'll be happier, trust me.

Everything about this film is bad: a pathetic adaptation, a boring screenplay, absurd sets, a soundtrack that is worse than my dog's barking and acting that can only be described as perpetrated.

There is not one single redeeming quality in it, and it is completely useless except maybe as a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie.

Bad as it is on its own, it is all the more painful if you are familiar with Isaac Asimov's classic short story, on which this absurdity is allegedly based - even though any similarity... no, there are no similarities.

If IMDb allowed negative scores this film would deserve one. A chimpanzee with a home video camera could (and would) have made a better film than this on the first try. Just skip this junk.

Somewhere . . . somehow . . . one of the finest short SF stories ever to be penned was brutally transmorgrified into a mishmosh of New Age symbolism heavily overlaid with bad acting. Asimov's original story was a well crafted tale of slowly consuming fear over a natural event. Mayersberg's film version by rights should have been a major genre event. Instead we find veteran character actors such as Sarah Douglas and Alexis Kanner (who should've known better) trying to shore up one of the worst David Birney performances ever filmed. Only two things can be recommended about this film: an interesting poster, and the fact that it was filmed in and around Paolo Soleri's "Arcosanti" architectural project out in Arizona.