Misteriose forme di vita

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!

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)

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.

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!