Nightfall (2000 Video) User Reviews

Horrible

[FlickJunkie-2 · 2/10 · 22 September 2000]

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.

IT'S GOD'S WILL

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 18 December 2018]

Aeon is a planet with 6 suns and it is never dark...except for that one time. It seems every 1,000 years it goes pitch black and everyone panics. The film is designed to show the rift between science and religion as far as prophecy and causation. Some of societies' superstitions and religious beliefs have a basis in fact. In this regard, the basic theme of the story comes through. In this film a woman scientist teams up with a religious "Watcher" as a minor "Romeo and Juliet" type romance.

The problem I had was the characters. The planet had a Casablanca setting with people of various accents and complexion. I would think everyone would be dark skinned, but hey, that's just some crazy idea I have on sunlight and its effect on the flesh. What exactly does the phrase "Meet you tomorrow morning" mean on a planet with no nightfall? The characters didn't excite me.

I believe this film could be remade, or better yet, inspire a new modern script purists would hate, but one that would be reflective of today's world.

The beautiful actress saves the film...

[sonoffi · 4/10 · 16 January 2006]

I would have never watched this film from the start to the beginning if Jennifer Burns wouldn't have been so beautiful. This woman needs to get more roles. She can also act. The film was almost as bad as people say, but hey, the budget must have been pretty small. I haven't read the original book and am not planning to but this was not totally a waste of time. Burnings were created using miniatures, but you will get the idea when watching it. Consider watching it if you like Sci-Fi. I do not like Sci-Fi at all (there are of course some exceptions) but I still think this was not complete piece of excrement. It is nice that people make films and don't have just dollars on their minds.

Nothing comes of nothing

[brule31x63 · 1/10 · 30 May 2004]

Okay, in Asimov's story, a technologically secure and superficially confident society falls to ruin because they burn books and civilization itself in the one night they experience in a 1000 years.

In the movie, a superstitious voodoo society on the verge of collapse is made no worse by the first night in a thousand years.

The written story can be compared to the Heart of Darkness -- oh, the horror of letting go of reason.

In the movie, the poorly acted characters go from nowhere and nothing to nowhere and nothing.

To have a story, something must happen. One would think that the first nightfall in centuries would be something. But, the film-makers manage to make this something into something boring.

For a long time nothing happened, then, suddenly and without warning, nothing continued to happen.

Why? Why, why, why? Why do only the talentless get to adapt Nightfall?

[Clive-Silas · 22 August 2003]

What is it about Nightfall that singles it out for appaling movie treatment? The original regularly tops lists of votes for the greatest science fiction short story ever written (not a judgement Asimov himself concurred with, by the way). Why does it only get filmed by people with no talent and no money? A bad film of Nightfall already got made in 1988. Why on earth would anybody remake *that*? Why doesn't someone say, "This is a good story. Why not lets make a good movie out of it?" instead of "Someone made a bad movie out of this, lets make another one." Isn't there a decent scriptwriter and a good director who both happen to be fans of Asimov?

Grave insult to Grand-Master Asimov

[cemk-2 · 1/10 · 30 December 2002]

As an Isaac Asimov fan, and sharing the idea that "Nightfall One," his SF story is possibly the best SF story ever written with many others, I had hopes on this film. It's nothing like the story, there's nothing in common other than there are six suns around the planet, there's a scientist, and the night surely falls to madden people who had never experienced a night for 1,000 years. The film is totally crap, acting is awful, the script's based on the astronomer's stupid daughter's antics and a shabby love-story between her and a priest/guard, and I simply can't believe how Asimov's estate allowed this piece of crap to be filmed. It's surely an abomination to the works and memory of the great master of Science-Fiction and I am totally appalled by the awfulness, stupidity, shallowness, and total lack of respect to the original script. The characters in the short story then became characters of a novel -not as good- by Asimov and Robert Silverberg, but nothing in it suggested such terrible imagination at the part of the script-writer. I, for one, am ashamed of this whole effort and I hope the video ruts in shelves. It is, in short, a grave insult to a wonderful author who gave us everything modern SF is working with from robots to the main ideas of the Star Wars, Star Trek (even Star Trek's famous insignia is from Asimovian Empire's starship-and-sun sign), and many other films and novels. Pity that Asimov (with the probable exception of Fantastic Voyage) could never be cinematised correctly. I mean, when I watched Bicentennial Man, I had felt betrayed. As to this abomination, I can't find enough words to abhor it. May its producers, actors, and script-writers rot in Hell!

Falling Votes! Very disappointing!

[gpmac · 1/10 · 20 November 2003]

I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought it could have been a lot better. I mean, talk about low budget...it was so low, that it would have been better reading the book and coming up with your own imaginative world...Acting was absolutely terrible and the storyline was very bleak! David Carradine really made a mistake throwing himself into this one. Read the book, don't even waste your time with the movie...Isaac Asimov must be turning in his grave on this one!

Huge Disappointment! Wish someone with a bit of a budget had made it.

[carljct · 1/10 · 29 March 2004]

I am a hard core science fiction fan and an Asimov fan in particular. In fact Nightfall was the first science fiction book I ever read. I have reread it many times and always remembered it fondly... Until now. I can't believe the people that made this film got the legitimate authorization to butcher such a wonderful story. The acting was horrible although I suspect that was mostly due to a lousy script. The special effects should have been left out to further improve this movie. Worst of all I actually bought it thinking Asimov's estate wouldn't let them make too bad a movie.. Right? WRONG!! That said. I hope they do a better job with I. Robot currently in the works. Looks like a bigger budget what with will smith etc...

Great Asimov story but poorly presented

[hopkins-9 · 1/10 · 3 March 2005]

I first read Isaac Asimov's sci-fi story, Nightfall, in the 1980s when I was asked to help find financing to make a film version by the person who then owned the movie rights. I read the book and was moved... Asimov's story says much about the nature of scientific knowledge and religious superstition, and it says much about how we are locked into our world and often not able to transcend it. At the end, the scientists of the day discover that the religious nuts were right all along about one basic fact... but their interpretation of this fact was quite wrong. Asimov had a long and prolific career as a writer of sci-fi but Nightfall, written when he was only nineteen was one of his more (most?) famous stories.

I couldn't raise the money for its filming and lost track of the project. So I was excited to see the film. What a disappointment. It had been filmed in India (is that we they got the money finally?) and the story greatly expanded. It had been made into a love story - it did not explore the nature of knowledge at all. The lead actress was quite unconvincing, pathetic, actually. I had my whole family watch the movie with me and was quite embarrassed. They kept asking me what I thought but I would say nothing as they would have all walked out... I kept hoping is would improve. But it didn't.

Much Much Better than the 1988 Version

[lsnunez · 1/10 · 21 July 2001]

"If the stars were to appear but one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which they had seen." So goes the quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson that inspired editor John Campbell to pose it as a story idea to Isaac Asimov.

The result was the classic short story, "Nightfall". Every thousand years, a world bathed by the perpetual light of six suns, experiences total darkness. What would happen to society? How would people react? What kind of society would evolve where lights aren't needed... Asimov's short story touches on all these.

Unfortunately, where Asimov succeeded Hollywood has not. While this is a far better movie than the 1988 production, it still falls short.

Mainly, it is not really true to the story, but as best as I can tell takes place 1000 years after the time of Asimov's story, at the next nightfall. The plot and the acting aren't bad, but they aren't great either.

If you've never read the short story, it's worth a rental. If you have read Nightfall, it's worth a rental just to finally get rid of the sour taste from the 1998 production.

Watcher Beware!

[greggy-7 · 1/10 · 16 January 2007]

As stated in another comment about this movie, 'BEST SF story ever, WORST SF movie ever', I totally and 100% agree. This movie is awful. The story, if you get a chance to read it, is a masterpiece and was loosely used as a backdrop for the movie 'Pitch Black'. This movie, if you can call it that, is only comparable to the story by what happens at the end of the movie, and that is not even accurate. David Carradine was the only thing good about this in an otherwise dismal movie.

By all means, read the short story.

And by all means, DO NOT see this movie.

You will thank me in the end.

Movie Adaptation of Asimov's Nightfall

[jdm1 · 8/10 · 17 May 2004]

Nightfall is one of, if not the, most loved Science Fiction stories of all time. The late Dr. Asimov produced over 500 books, in virtually all genres, which complimented his role as an educator at some of the nation's finest universities. Also widely known as the most effective popularizer of science during his time, Asimov's work Nightfall dishes out extremely cleverly played challenges to the audience's mind.

The acting was very entertaining taken in context, and good for a chuckle if the budget-constraint made the somber tone seem a little corny. If the budget and special effects of the original recording's era aren't overly impressive, attention to the storyline leads to a meaningful movie-going experience.

delightfully cheesy

[saffron_wing · 7/10 · 7 December 2006]

I actually rather enjoyed this movie it was delightfully cheesy. It was fun to point out the mistakes and a lot of it made me laugh. I kept saying during the movie that like 90% of the set was cardboard. It is fun to watch B-Movies because of how cheesy they are it's just funny. I know some people are really picky about a book and a film needing to match word for word... well make it yourself then if you aren't satisfied with how someone does something. i never read the book. also this is my first post and comment so excuse me. and of course i always try something myself. if someone tells me something sucks i'll watch it and judge for myself. people should do the same don't take one persons word that something is bad see it for yourself you may like it.

Failed attempt at a sci-fi adventure movie.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 4/10 · 30 May 2009]

Judging by looking at this movie, the film-makers must have thought they had gold. The original source material seemed good enough to create and interesting and deep thought provoking sci-fi movie with. I seemed however like they had no idea how to handle its concept properly. Instead they threw in some adventure and lame action to make the movie a good and interesting one but the end result is far from satisfying.

It's an obviously cheaply made movie, with low production values, which can be seen back in its small sets and the unimaginative look of the overall movie, which is especially disappointing for a movie of its sort. Yes you can call this a typical straight to DVD B-movie.

What makes the movie all the more worse are the acting performances. Some people should just never be allowed to work in the movie business. This movie does really have some untalented people uttering their lines in front of the camera in it. The movie still has David Carradine though, which always adds some pleasure to any movie.

The movie is just never any exciting or spectacular to watch. The movie could had raised some thought provoking elements and themes but at fails at every attempt to do so. The action and more adventurous elements of the movie are also far from good enough to still consider this movie a watchable one.

The story is being told too messy and without any imagination really. Seems like director Gwyneth Gibby has no passion for the genre really and also certainly no experience in it.

There really is no reason why you should ever watch this clumsy little movie.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The only thing similar to the book is the title.

[xetron · 28 July 2003]

I'm not that much of a hardcore Asimov fan, but Nightfall is one of my favotire stories. I saw this movie at the rentals and decided to give it a go. Like many other pointed out - the only thing similar to the story is the fact that there is indeed an eclipse on 6 sun world. The director decided to build the movie around the point where everyone go insane and start burning things. Which is an important part of the story, but not THE most important one. Not to mention the use of SUPER POWERS? "Hmmm... this story is nice, but let's add superpowrs to it! Yeah, that should make them watch it!" Err, not. To sum it all up - If you read the book, don't see this, it has little to do with the story and you will just sit and say "Ehhh... he can light flames with his mind?". I know i did :)

Nightfoul

[imdb-1414 · 1/10 · 27 December 2002]

Truly awful. IMDB should allow an option of zero stars for films such as this. The only redeeming feature that struggles to mind is that I presume it could have been longer. Before wasting time watching this testament to man's seemingly limitless ability to take a great story and disfigure it beyond recognition, consider the many ways 82 minutes could be more usefully spent, for example: counting out loud repeatedly from one to fifty; sucking the dust out of a carpet with your mouth; digging a hole in your own buttocks with a teaspoon. Each of these acts would be more productive, more spiritually fulfilling, and more artistic than suffering through to the end of this movie.

Eventually proves to be a slightly interesting story, but it is ridiculously presented in every respect.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 2/10 · 6 February 2001]

If you can manage to sit through the first 60 to 70 minutes of this movie without turning it off in disgust, you will be presented with something that vaguely resembles an interesting story. However, despite the fact that Nightfall eventually begins to almost start to kind of possibly redeem itself a little tiny bit, every bit of the rest of the film is just a belligerent mess.

Everything, even down to the smallest details, was awful. In the beginning, the two girls want to look in the mysterious hole, and the big beefy guard sounds just like a little kid as he pathetically pleads them not to. You almost expect him to start to say that they're mean for not listening to him. That dumbass guard even held their lantern for them while they began to dig deeper in the hole. Illyra finds ‘artifacts' in the hole that bear ridiculous resemblance to mirrored balls shaped like tin cans (`…it appears to be some kind of alloy…'). She pokes around in the cave for quite some time before noticing that it is packed with snakes. And did anyone stop to think about what exactly those snakes might find to eat down there in this lifeless hole? Sheerin suggested that Beta (I guess that would be the biggest of the six suns) was going to be eclipsed by an INVISIBLE planet. Some of the characters are fighting with ridiculous tin foil swords, yet Illyra has a freakin' laser gun. What is this, The Gods Must Be Crazy meets Star Wars? Besides that, the editor must have slept through the scene where one of the evil watchers was on fire and wandered on camera with his great big space helmet in plain view. What a joke.

What was the deal with the planet Aeon? Was this just Earth in disguise? Illyra referred to her race as `mankind,' there is talk about `God's will' as well as the Book of Revelations (not Earth, but they have the same Bible?), and these bonehead girls even buy a CAMERA from a street vendor (`Wow! A camera! I've never seen one so advanced! It's got some kind of filter on it!'). You can tell that these girls were real geniuses. At least they TRIED to portray the females as intelligent people (even though they failed miserably).

Metron was pretty ridiculous as the poor guy who finds himself among the bad guys as he modestly makes use of his laughable powers (firestarting, mind control, HEALING for crying out loud). All of the acting in the entire film was pathetic, and so was the script. However, I loved the efforts of Sheerin to keep her promise to Illyra. That was probably the funniest part of the whole movie. `Where is she?' `I promised I wouldn't tell! She went into the desert with a watcher named Metron! They left yesterday!' Oops. What an idiot.

Once the point of the movie eventually rolled around, it got interesting for a few seconds in a row, surprisingly enough. Aeon has never experienced nighttime, and every 1000 years, a gigantic planet eclipses her largest sun and plunges the planet into darkness. Maybe it wasn't so much that they were all afraid of the dark as much as they were just mystified about what happened to their other five suns. Besides that, did these people not have darkness in their houses? Had they never escaped the sunlight even for a minute in all of their lives? It seems that without darkness, they wouldn't even know to be afraid of the dark. Oh well, I guess it's a mass response to set fire to their own houses and then giggle hysterically as they watch them burn. Also, never mind the fact that a planet that size (the one that caused the eclipse), with a 1000 year orbit, would probably have eclipsed Aeon for WEEKS, not minutes, as you saw in the movie.

It is truly a shame that Isaac Asimov's name was associated with this horrendous insult to the cinematic medium. There is not a single good thing to be said about this movie. `The Greatest Science Fiction Story of All Time' should qualify as false advertising. Even hard-core science fiction fans would be hard pressed to find something interesting about this garbage. Avoid at all costs.

A laughable adaption

[Doyle · 1/10 · 2 September 2001]

I'm just grateful that I was drunk when I watched this. No one can come away with any credit, the acting was wooden, the direction was inadequate and the special effects were especially crap. I would have preferred an adaption of the novel that was created from Asimov's short story but all we were given was a very substandard action movie. The gaps in plot were filled with gunfights, swordfights and mind control tricks of no consequence.

Read the book instead. If you have to watch the film, grab some tinnies from the off licence first.

Unwatchable after minutes

[johnericketts · 1/10 · 16 September 2007]

Loved Azimov for 45 years. Couldn't BELIEVE how awful a movie could be made from the highest quality material. The worst issue: stunningly horrible acting from the whole ensemble, as if forced emotion and stilted delivery were contagious. I had to stop after ten minutes, tried again the next day, stopped after another ten minutes solely due to the acting. I have loved movies all my life and own 1475 movies. First impression is that this was the worst acting I ever saw in my life.

I'm sure there are other areas I could address, but I couldn't get interested enough to carry on. I also looked in this website to see if most people saw that same travesty I did. THEY did too.

The joke's on me....

[barthel · 1/10 · 22 June 2010]

Back in the 90's, I rented the videotape of Nightfall. I was thrilled because somebody finally made a movie out of my favorite author's work. Then I watched the tape and was appalled at how bad it was and that I'd never ever get that time back. (Mind you, I *like* bad movies--one of my all-time favorites is _Revenge of the Teenage Vixens from Outer Space_.) Fast forward to 2010. A local video store is going out of business and I'm picking up bargains.OMG! Nightfall! On DVD! I couldn't believe they actually wasted discs burning that old piece of excrement onto a DVD. But, I says to myself, I can have fun inflicting this onto people because I now have proof that it's one of the worst movies ever made.

The joke is on me.

This is a *new* version of Nightfall. It actually has a bit of a plot. It's not the travesty that was the 1988 version. But it's not very good either. I was knowingly buying a bad movie, but somehow, I feel cheated because it's not a bad as I expected...

A guy turns into a snake and also David Carradine less drunk than expected

[austin-45114 · 4/10 · 28 April 2020]

A guy turns into a CGI snake and then bites a bad guy and the camera cuts to a significantly smaller rubber snake hanging onto the bad guy's neck and then cuts back to the big good-looking playstation 2 snake. Then one of the hottest women i've ever seen shoots a space gun at some people and it makes the Buck Rogers space gun sound i like when she shoots it so now i don't have to cruise 9th street tonight because that was all i needed. Finally, David Carradine is not as haggard as expected and almost acts like a human one would meet somewhere.

So bad that it's not even laughable

[Monika-6 · 1/10 · 19 February 2005]

I'm writing this comment to warn all of you out there who think that a low average here on IMDb means a laughable b-movie (as I usually do ;) ). This movie is only annoying! Even more so if you've actually read the story that it claims to be originated from.

The movie looks as if it was produced in the late 80's (but the cover says year 2000) and the guy who adopted the story from novel to screenplay can not have read Asimov's version. He can at most have gotten half of it retold by someone speaking a foreign language that he doesn't really understand. Why else would he completely remove the second half of the story? Did the crew quit as a protest to the horrific acting? I can only guess...

Summary: This movie is a total waste of time!

Stereotypical Cardboard Characters in Absurd Setting

[karenkyla3 · 1/10 · 10 December 2001]

I'm wracking my brain for one redeeming virtue this movie has and honestly there's nothing. The acting was stolen straight from a second-rate daytime soap opera. The special effects were laughable. The setting was so unimaginative it was absurd. I love how sci fi movies think that creating another planet merely entails filming in a desert with Mideastern duds. The most absurd aspect of the film was the blatantly stereotypical casting. The religious zealots with their reign of terror on the people wore red eastern robes, were of arabic and eastern descent, and used ancient scythes. The desert nomadic barbarians were all African American with African war paint and spoke in mostly grunts. The University scholars were of course all white Americans.

I originally rented the movie wanted to see something of Isaac Asimov's as I'd heard he was a premier sci fi writer and the proposition was intriguing. At the end, I really hope this movie is no indication of Asimov's writing as the movie takes an amazing idea and twists it until it's virtually unrecognizable. It says nothing, it does nothing. It merely proclaims, "Look at what a bad movie I am!"

A fascinating dichotomy: best SF story every made, worst SF movie ever made

[Charles-31 · 10 January 2002]

Wow, this is a stinker. They took a great SF short story and turned it into utter rubbish. Isaac Asimov is spinning at 3000 RPM in his grave. Why would they do this? Why would the Asimov estate consent to let this buchery be done?

My favorite line: "I projected an image into their minds", Brooks explaining his strange. Funny how Goodman failed to ask how he managed to project into a bunch of snakes minds that they would blow up and they actually did...

Dante has a special place for people who make films like this. I wish them an eternity in it...

They hate Asimov

[gregorypang · 1/10 · 26 November 2000]

Just plain bad. Whoever made this movie must have hated Isaac Asimov, the greatest science fiction writer of all time. "Nightfall" is one of the best sci-fi short stories ever written, so what better way to desecrate Asimov's than by making one cheese ball film claiming to be based on Asimov's "Nightfall"!

I have not read the Nightfall novel co-written with Robert Silverberg but from Asimov fans like myself, I heard it was pretty decent.. though not as effective as the short-story. Nightfall (2000) the movie turns a skillful examination of the human condition of a completely different environment into a poorly directed and even worse acted Hollywood-B remote so-called "adaption." 1/10