Nightfall

Rating:
Summary: Not That Bad
Review: This set a record in my life's movie-watching experience: I rented it three times, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and three times I couldn't stay awake through the first hour.
Asimov's story is a classic; this is a classic dud.

Rating:
Summary: Zzzzzzzz
Review: This set a record in my life's movie-watching experience: I rented it three times, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and three times I couldn't stay awake through the first hour.
Asimov's story is a classic; this is a classic dud.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: This story was originally a short story by Isaac Asimov that was critically acclaimed. It was next expanded into a novel that received mixed reviews. It has now further deteriorated into a dreadful film.

This film was far below B movie standards. Every element of it was poorly done. I've seen better acting in high school assembly halls. The screenplay was horrible with dialogue so bad it could make you retch. The music was shrill and the sound quality poor. The special effects were below 1960's standards. Even the editing was poor. The whole film was simply pathetic.

Asimov's original theme of the battle between science and religion was almost completely lost in an attempt to make the story into a "Raiders of the Lost Arc" adventure. The explanation of why darkness fell on the planet centered on the eclipse of one sun, but failed to explain what happened to the other five.

This film was abysmal. I rated it a 2/10. Stay away.

Rating:
Summary: Read the book instead
Review: Very few famous sci-fi books get decently treated when it comes to bringing them to the screen (Starship troopers comes to mind). Like Starship troopers, the origional story and characters are largely ignored, to make an enjoyable film that bears little or no resemblence to the book.

I would advise you save your cash and buy the book instead. And while you are there get starship troopers as well, it si MUCH better better (and different) than the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Asimov's 'Nightfall': A Challenge In Reviewing
Review: When I first read Isaac Asimov's short story "Nightfall", I was stunned and left gasping at its powerhouse of a closing. When I finished watching the filmed version, I was also stunned and left gasping--but for quite different reasons. All the mystery and beauty of the short story that sought to explain a millenia old phenomenon of a planet's first and last nightfall was not only lost in the movie, but even on a technical level of competence, from the wretched directing of Paul Mayersberg to the incompetent acting of David Birney and David Carradine, this movie quite unintentionally presents both a challenge and a dilemma to those whose job it is to pass judgment on its merits. For truly abysmal efforts like ROBOT MONSTER or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, these efforts nevertheless retain the saving grace of something that clicks with the audience, whether that something be the excessive exuberance of John Barrows waving his arms in a gorilla suit from ROBOT MONSTER or the perversely androgynous heavy-handedness of director Ed Wood in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Even 'bad' movies can have a style of their own that comes into play usually late at night in a marijuana filled college recreation room. But what separates the fun of enjoyable bad movies from the torture of having to sit through garbage like NIGHTFALL is the deadening seriousness of the collective hands of all concerned from director to writer to actor. In such movies as this, there is nowhere to be found any lightness of attitude or just plain old fun. It is as if such films serve only to remind the audience that there are indeed moments in our lives that call for infinite patience while someone drives sharp needles under our fingernails. Yet, I do not want to have to pay for such dubious pleasure. With films like this one, I did.

Rating:
Summary: For this reason alone:
Review: When I was a kid my Dad loved Isaac Asimov...he still does. I gotta admit--he's an okee writer. He also taught what was it...college physics or something? He was a teacher. And he puts more science than normal into his science fiction...which seems awful sad. Anyway, my Dad was so excited--he's very conservative you know. And religious. He doesn't get excited very often. Heehee so we get to
the part where they bring in those birds to peck out that ladeez
eyebolls right and he literally HITS the VCR to turn the tape off! Oh it was classic. Worth every penny.

Rating:
Summary: Speaking of Darkness, I'd rather the screen had gone dark
Review: Where to begin? Should I start with the part about how there is almost no relationship between this movie and one of Asimov's finest stories? Should I mention that the acting was terrible? Or should I just rag on the cheesy special effects which made it impossible to focus on what pathetic vestige of a plot they bothered to offer us. Dried paint (bright red, not dirty red) on swords to signify blood of someone run through with the sword only moments before. Flame effects that--oh, what's the point? I could go on and on, since nearly every minute of the movie was painful and deserves criticism. Ignore Asimov's name associated with this movie. Read the short story, or better yet the novel that he co-wrote with Silverberg. Or get the Audiobook. But do not see this movie under any circumstances.

By the way, I agree with the other commentor who said you need to expand to a "zero stars" rating for movies like this. It's pushing it to give this movie a star.

Rating:
Summary: Not even worth the ONE STAR
Review: Why was this movie even made? This is the type of movie that Holywood producers see and think "Well, if it was written as a book first, we might as well throw away the script now." It gives a bad name to movies based on books.

I have never read the original book, Nightfall, and have hardly touched any of Asimov's works, but this movie makes me want to keep away from any books by the "Renowned" and "Award Winning" author.

The movie was obviously filmed in India and uses locals as extras. The only people with lines are Caucasian except for the two "villains" who spend more time making faces while speaking than they do making any sense of the lines they have been fed. David Caridine has never been a good actor. The "Kung Fu" series I consider a pathetic excuse for a joke. The only good thing about this movie is the art on the DVD/VHS cover.

The leads are two caucasian women in mid-eighties clothing with bulky purses that contain laser-pistols. They use a modern telescopic camera lens on an antique telescope found in a cave; that would be laughable if they bothered to take a moment to exploit it a bit. Good or bad, not one person in this film is even slightly attractive. Whatever the producers of this film were thinking when they made it, or whatever they were on, it was really a huge waste of time and money.

Don't waste your money on this...