Nightflyers

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.

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.

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.

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.

The silly, uninteresting story (a computer that has the mind of a mother with a fixation on her son?) and the annoying overacting of some of the players are the two most important - but not the only - problems with this very, very minor sci-fi flick. However, the effects are good for what they probably cost, and Catherine Mary Stewart shows indications of being a strong female lead - she deserves a better movie. (*1/2)