Nightflyers

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!

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!

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)

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.

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.