Planeta Infernal

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.

This film has great value as establishing a clear example of what a very bad piece of cinema looks like.

I had the misfortune of seeing this film in its brief theatrical release. I had talked my wife into seeing it by emphasizing the Asimov source material,and that the director, Paul Mayersberg, had done "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence," and "The Man Who Fell to Earth." I cannot explain what happened to Mayersberg between the time he made these films and the time he made "Nightfall," other than to say that whatever it was, it wasn't good. That he was given the chance to make other films subsequent to this stinker argues strongly against the prevalent stereotype of Hollywood being heartless. Clearly, pity must have played a role in providing him with an additional opportunity.

My impressions: the locations appear to have been Topanga Canyon (although the IMDB lists Arcosante, Arizona), and the costumes (wigs and all) look like they came right out of the Ten Commandments' propman's trunk--probably the first time they'd seen the light of day since gracing Mr. Heston & company's loins.

If Isaac Asimov's surviving kin have any respect for him, they should seek to have his name removed from the credits; whatever the legal cost might be to achieve this, it would be worth it.

The temptation to quote the comic shop guy on 'The Simpsons' and leave my entire review at "Worst movie ever" is tremendous, but there *have* been worse movies than this inept and insulting version of one of the masterworks of science fiction.

Not very many, though.

I can only assume that Mayersberg came up with this version based on no more than a one-line plot summary of Isaac Asimov's classic short story. It's inconceivable that he actually *read* it, given what he put on film.

The resemblance to Asimov's original 'Nightfall' is limited, and strictly, to the fact that this culture hasn't experienced a sunset. Other than that, he has taken off on a tangent that, had Asimov written it himself, would have immediately been ripped from the typewriter and consigned to the trashbin.

My experience with this film was even worse, being the great Asimov fan that I am. Had the tape I watched not been a rental, I would have taken it out into the street and run over it several times, ground what remained into a powder, and burned it before it could hurt anyone else. Alas, I had to return it to the video store, there to sit quietly and innocently on the shelf, awaiting its chance to cruelly crush the hopes of a subsequent SF fan.

This movie should only be rented if you're holding an MST3K night and want something suitable for riffing. Otherwise, save yourself the money. It ain't worth it.

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.

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.