Rating: 
Summary: Torture to endure from start to finish...
Review: Okay, okay, this movie was as rotten as a reeking week old carcass under the blazing sun. I can lament for hours about the MANY horribly done 'effects' and the fact that it did not match the original tale, clinging only to several very BASE-ic threads to what was an Asimov Masterpiece. I could also go on and on about how this horrific movie was cast with what I would think are the dregs of the Screen Actor's Guild (if not just ordinary passers-by abducted off the streets of Calcutta and forced to perform in this heinous waste of celluloid under the threat of their demise) -- but I can only say this... As horrid as it was... as tasteless, and wasteful of cash and human life-moments as this travesty of film has been, it is not half as horrid as its 1988 predecessor. *That* movie was some product of a bodily function from a mushroom-dazed idiot, and like some movies & games have been known to induce epileptic fits, this movie nearly caused me catatonia. Anyway... this movie bites the big one, but if you enjoy MST3K as a show, and like to do as they did... it's the perfect candidate for such activities. For anyone who enjoys Sci-fi, and is looking for good entertainment, find the book by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, and read that... These film adaptations of the story (probably spawned from some evil parallel universe) should be shot into the sun.
Rating:
Summary: Nightfall Flame Effects
Review: Regarding the "Flame Effects". Those are not actually computer generated. From what I understand it was a model on set shot off scale. The fire burning the village was practical, thus it being off scale. There may have been some smoke cg added to the shot to try and down play this fact, but everything else was a practical.
Rating:
Summary: Worse Than "Plan 9 from Outer Space"!
Review: Rent this only if you and your friends like to play "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and make fun of really bad movies! This is the most amateurish film I have ever seen. Apparently filmed in India, it features red paint put onto the swords with a brush to simulate blood. Giant unrealistic flames burn in a model village worthy of a scene from a Godzilla epic. Look closely at the end when a bad guy is burning to death and you can see his protective helmet! Only a crowd of folks with a good sense of humor and possibly a six-pack or a bottle of wine can make this movie bearable. It is an insult to Isaac Asimov's story.Aside to AMAZON.COM: You need to allow a rating of ZERO stars!
Rating:
Summary: What, no /zero/ rating available?
Review: The short story is fabulous. The novel is pure genius. Things the moviehas in common with the book: an eclipse, fires, and a few people's names. Things the movie got wrong: the level of technology, the psychotic fear of darkness, the religious nuts, the relationships between the people, the jobs of the characters, the PLOT. I got abot half an hour into it before I started skipping ahead by chapters. after about 30 seconds of that I stopped it. Read the book. For that matter, STARE BLINDLY AT THE COVER OF THE BOOK. You'll enjoy it more.
Rating:
Summary: Truly insulting to Asimov fans.
Review: There are so many complaints for this film that it would take too much time to enumerate. On a world with 6 stars and constant light, the entire planet is of a middle-eastern/Indian skin tone, except for our handful of protagonists, who are surprisingly caucasian. The societal conventions, including such things as dress and makeup are also uninspiringly late 20th century American, down to lipstick and pony tails. Our heroes use camping lanterns to explore caverns yet whip out laser pistols to fight off sword-wielding attackers. Robe-wearing religious fanatics are our antagonists, and seeing a similarly clad David Carradine confronting them makes one expect to see a sudden kung fu showdown, and a Japanese anime-style soundtrack clashes horribly with all too 'Roger Corman' plain cinematics. An hour and a half of my time I wish I could get back.
Rating:
Summary: Truly insulting to Asimov fans.
Review: There are so many complaints for this film that it would take too much time to enumerate. On a world with 6 stars and constant light, the entire planet is of a middle-eastern/Indian skin tone, except for our handful of protagonists, who are surprisingly caucasian. The societal conventions, including such things as dress and makeup are also uninspiringly late 20th century American, down to lipstick and pony tails. Our heroes use camping lanterns to explore caverns yet whip out laser pistols to fight off sword-wielding attackers. Robe-wearing religious fanatics are our antagonists, and seeing a similarly clad David Carradine confronting them makes one expect to see a sudden kung fu showdown, and a Japanese anime-style soundtrack clashes horribly with all too 'Roger Corman' plain cinematics. An hour and a half of my time I wish I could get back.
Rating:
Summary: what else can i say?
Review: they're all right- this is probably the worst movie ever made.
Rating:
Summary: Nightfall 2000
Review: This is -THE- worst adaptation of an Isaac Asimov story by far. I thought I was ordering the 1988 version directed by Paul Meyersberg. The Meyersberg version is also low budget but clearly superior. Gibby (director of Nightfall 2000) seemed to be more inerested in providing work for stuntmen in training than telling a story. Where can I get my money back? Else this DVD ends up in the microwave.
Rating:
Summary: This movie is bad.
Review: This movie is bad. Very bad. Extraordinarily bad. To put it in perspective, a group of devoted movie fans who once cheerfully watched a double feature of Robot Jox and Teenage Mutant Turtles II -- in short, a group of people with no discernible standards whatsoever -- this group of people voted to turn this film off after a mere 30 minutes of viewing. The sole good thing I can say about this movie is that it shares a title and a basic idea in common with a story by Isaac Asimov. Other than that, the effects, acting, storyline, production values, dialogue, art, locations, and direction are all either completely non-descript or outright lame. To be fair it should be noted that the one person who voted in favor of continuing to watch this film was also the one person who had never read the Asimov story. If you fit into this category, it may be possible for you to grit your teeth and sit through the whole thing. I can't think of a single reason to, though.
Rating:
Summary: Miserable And Vile (ZERO star rating)
Review: This movie, I am thinking it is very very bad, and not good at all. Do you understand? I won't describe it, but at least one scene was simply vile, and simply wasn't needed. The original short story is fine. The long book which Silverberg wrote is fine also. But this movie is not in tune with either Asimov's or Silverbergs writing. Even if I wasn't comparing it to a previously published story, I would say this movie is miserable. And vile. The script is miserable. The acting is miserable. All of it is miserable. And some of it is vile. This is what I am thinking. And by the way, it sucks worse than any movie I have ever seen. And some of it is vile.
| 
