Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueOn a planet with perpetual daylight, nightfall's arrival brings destruction. A dramatic depiction of Asimov's award-winning story, exploring the clash between science and superstition as dar... Tout lireOn a planet with perpetual daylight, nightfall's arrival brings destruction. A dramatic depiction of Asimov's award-winning story, exploring the clash between science and superstition as darkness looms.On a planet with perpetual daylight, nightfall's arrival brings destruction. A dramatic depiction of Asimov's award-winning story, exploring the clash between science and superstition as darkness looms.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Prix
- 1 nomination au total
Charley Hayward
- Kin
- (as Charles Hayward)
Avis en vedette
And my summary line sums up this movie. This is easily one of the worst adaptations I have ever heard of.
What was so hard about trying to actually stick with Asimov's classic story? Did they think it would be boring? What they created is not simply boring, it's virtually incoherent as well.
In the world of science fiction, the long night has, metaphorically, always been with us. This film is a Black Hole that extinguishes the light of the original tale, sucks it in and imprisons it.
What was so hard about trying to actually stick with Asimov's classic story? Did they think it would be boring? What they created is not simply boring, it's virtually incoherent as well.
In the world of science fiction, the long night has, metaphorically, always been with us. This film is a Black Hole that extinguishes the light of the original tale, sucks it in and imprisons 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.
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.
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.
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.
There may be worse films, but I've never seen them. When I saw this movie in the theater the ticket seller actually warned me that a lot of people didn't like it and that I could have my money back if I left in the first 15 minutes.
Unfortunately I watched the whole thing, thinking to myself that it just *had* to get better. It didn't.
The only way that I'd watch this movie again is if my other choice was bamboo under the finger nails.
Unfortunately I watched the whole thing, thinking to myself that it just *had* to get better. It didn't.
The only way that I'd watch this movie again is if my other choice was bamboo under the finger nails.
Having read the classic sci-fi story by Asimov, I was, of course, expecting something better. In this case, seeing two wheelchair-bound spasmatics fighting each other with brooms and a bucket of manure would qualify as "better". This film was even worse than "A Boy and His Dog", another sci-fi semi-classic rendered horribly on film.
After being told about this film, Asimov reportedly told everyone he could that he had nothing to do with making the film, and to avoid it at all costs. He's probably rolling over in his grave right now just thinking about it.
The filmmakers attempted to portray a primitive society on the brink of technology, but what it looks like instead is that they simply raided the wardrobe closet of a low-budget renaissance festival. All the sets are little more than tents erected in the middle of a desert. Their astronomical "sounding" instruments are seashells and string glued to pieces of wood. (Yes, seashells - I wish I were making this up, but I'm not.)
My only regret is that I actually stayed to see the end of the film, in the hopes that the film might redeem itself with a climactic ending. Nope.
Take my word for it, if you don't like the first five minutes of it (and you won't), stop right there.
After being told about this film, Asimov reportedly told everyone he could that he had nothing to do with making the film, and to avoid it at all costs. He's probably rolling over in his grave right now just thinking about it.
The filmmakers attempted to portray a primitive society on the brink of technology, but what it looks like instead is that they simply raided the wardrobe closet of a low-budget renaissance festival. All the sets are little more than tents erected in the middle of a desert. Their astronomical "sounding" instruments are seashells and string glued to pieces of wood. (Yes, seashells - I wish I were making this up, but I'm not.)
My only regret is that I actually stayed to see the end of the film, in the hopes that the film might redeem itself with a climactic ending. Nope.
Take my word for it, if you don't like the first five minutes of it (and you won't), stop right there.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIsaac Asimov was never consulted in the making of the film based on his short story, and completely disowned the finished film when it was released.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Nightfall?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was La mort des soleils (1988) officially released in India in English?
Répondre