Night stalker - Le guetteur

Okay. I understand that Chris Carter and his *The X-Files* crew were inspired by the original *Kolchak: The Night Stalker* TV movies and series. I understand that Frank Spotnitz, the head writer for the 2005 *Night Stalker*, was a member of Carter's X-Files crew. I also understand that Darren McGavin is in his 80s and ailing, and even if he were in perfect health he'd be too old to reprise the role of Carl Kolchak.

I'm a pushing-50 baby boomer who watched the original Kolchak movies on ABC's Movie of the Week when I was in high school and watched the one season of *Kolchak: The Night Stalker* when I was in college. I'll even point out that I grew up watching reruns of George Reeves in *The Adventures of Superman*, and never had a problem accepting Jeff East, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain and now Tom Welling taking over the role of Clark Kent/Superman in his various subsequent incarnations. I wish I could say the same for Stuart Townsend's incarnation of Carl Kolchak, but I can't.

Inspiration and imitation do NOT equal replication. Kolchak may have inspired *The X-Files*, even to the point that Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz may have created a guest character for Darren McGavin in that show in tribute, but Spotnitz missed the mark completely on what Carl Kolchak was about. Kolchak was an irreverent, sarcastic and wisecracking rogue who could get knocked down but never out, who always got back up laughing, still irreverent and sarcastic and ready to keep swinging. Humor and irreverence were the lifeblood of the original Carl Kolchak, and Spotnitz sucked it out of this incarnation of Kolchak as thoroughly as Janos Skorzeny, Dracula, Nosferatu, Lestat or any other vampire who appeared on the big or small screen.

Many are touting *Night Stalker* as "the new X-Files," and I can't disagree with that; Stuart Townsend's Kolchak doesn't resemble Darren McGavin's original Kolchak so much as he does Fox Mulder-- if Mulder were taken off Prozac. It's obvious that the Generation Xers (pun definitely intended) like their TV shows about the supernatural dark, depressed and humorless; this show may be the new X-Files, but don't try to pass it off as the new *Kolchak: The Night Stalker*!

Somebody stake this vampire before it hurts anyone!

Let's forget for a moment that this pathetic excuse for a television show (which would fittingly describe 99% of what's on TV at this time - have you watched "The War at Home" lately?) is a remake of a cult classic of television, and judge it by itself.

It still sucks.

This show is the usual slickly shot, professionally made crap. It's a pile of rotting blubber wrapped in a fancy package. The writing sucks, the acting sucks. Gabrielle Union once again proves herself to be excellent at playing the cheerleader from BRING IT ON. Maybe add another character to your portfolio, Gabrielle? Every time the main character (was this guy just some underwear model before this show?) said his name was "Carl Kolchack," I shuddered. This show is an insult to the makers of the original (though I did see Dan Curtis listed as an Executive Producer; I hope he simply allowed them to use his name and didn't actually have any involvement in this atrocity).

I remember when movies and TV cast actors like Darren McGavin, Elliot Gould, George Segal, Shelly Winters, Richard Roundtree, Warren Oates, Jill Clayburgh... They were cast because they could ACT. Not because they were impossibly good-looking. They fit the character.

Now, the main criteria is that actors be as generically attractive as humanly possible, and their acting ability (or lack thereof) seems to be the last thing considered. I blame the audience as much as the filmmakers for this repugnant trend. Anyone who doesn't think that American audiences are becoming more and more superficial as each decade passes should take a look at the new NIGHT STALKER. There's your proof.

I see a lot of raves, people pumping the "new" Night Stalker on this site. I can't imagine why, other than they work for the production company or are related to the actors. Because this thing is terrible. And I don't want to hear from people angry about its dismal comparison to the original series. If the makers of the show didn't want a comparison, they shouldn't have called it Night Stalker and named its leading character Carl Kolchak. (And, by the way, I'm not against all contemporary remakes. The "new" Battlestar Galactica is a wonderful show, light years ahead of its infantile predecessor.)

Aside from its failure as a true descendant of the original series (that honor goes to this season's WB series, Supernatural), Night Stalker is a clunker because of its too loose story lines, its cast members who look like fashionistas, and its failure to come to grips with an interesting Carl. This one is a moody adolescent. Not too surprising, since the major networks seem intent on catering to 19 year-old nitwits whose notion of deep seated drama comes from watching anime. I could care less what happens to this Carl, the useless Perri Reed, and the bookend of the overly obvious gender bending of names, Jain (the fact that the little name game is what passes for humor in this series makes the effort even more pathetic). In fact, while I made it through the pilot episode, I only lasted 35 minutes into the second episode before I had had enough. Cross this one off the list. It deserves to die.

If this were on its own and had a different name, I'd recommend this show and get right behind it right away. Don't get me wrong, the writing is good, and most of the cast, Townshand included, can act, but the problem lies within its name.

I have no idea what possessed these people to give it the Night Stalker license. Its intriguing, its entertaining, but it sure as hell isn't Night Stalker.

The first problem is that this isn't the Karl I know. McGavin did a great job with the character and his attitude and wit made the original show the hit it is today.

Townshand meanwhile doesn't just have that magic. I'm well aware that nobody, and I mean nobody, can be as good as the original, but if you're gonna use the license, use it right and give him at least some of what made Koltchak Koltchak.

The second problem is that this is set in LA. The original was set in Chicago and that's fine, but the new one just becomes "Yet another supernatural tale set in LA." If it were set in any other city, maybe it'd have more merit.

Also, this just doesn't feel like Night Stalker. It's supernatural and the first ep was thrilling, but this just doesn't feel like the original.

So while this show is good, its not Night Stalker and it would have been better if it were something else.

When I was a kid, the original show bearing this name was awesome and one of my all time favorites. Enough so that I bought the Series on DVD when it became available. This show is virtually nothing like the original. While disappointing, it is not as terrible as some reviews have made it out to be. It is just...different. I discovered it on YouTube and have actually enjoyed watching it. The stories are interesting and hold your attention. The characters are fine so long as you don't try comparing them to their namesakes from the '70s. It would've been nice to see how another season would've turned out. Particularly if you consider some of the real dreck that was on network teevee back then...