Misteriose forme di vita

So if you like cheesy 80's music, TV and movies, then please see this. Otherwise, just pass. It really isn't that good. The cast is fun with Catherine Mary Stewart and everyone's favorite 80's rock star - Michael Des Barres. And there is some decent effects and atmosphere to spare. But it looks like 'Robert Collector' was going for a Michael Mann style look and just came up short. Again, good for 80's nostalgia. But that's kind of it.

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.

When I enter Nightflyers as my keyword in Google, all I get is references to this movie. That's a shame, since the George R. R. Martin novel, novella, whatever, is a wonderful, intriguing, scary, intelligent mystery story, whereas the movie is the palest ghost of the book's greatness. Martin's book predated Alien by about five years, and I wonder if Ron Shusett or Dan O'Bannon might have gotten some inspiration from it.

The movie is a typical '80s gore-fest, complete with misty, foggy sets, ridiculous dialogue and caricatures, and an explosive climax that totally ruins of the book's thoughtful ending. I like the actors who play Royd Eris and Professor D'Branin, and I admit I enjoyed Michael Des Barres's performance as the whacked-out telepath. But most of the acting was subpar. I thought Catherine Mary Stewart did what she could, but the script stripped away all the complexity of her character, who was much more richly drawn in the book. The movie also completely misses the book's subtle sense of humor. The book is closer in tone to John Carpenter's movie Dark Star, plus a great sense of mystery and spookiness. The movie spills the beans on Royd's backstory far too early and off-handedly, as opposed to the book's climactic revelation.

So don't let this movie turn you off of Nightflyers -- read the book. By all means, read it!

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.