Nightfall (2000)

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

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...

Seeing as how most people consider this film adaptation of a classic Asimov tale to be utter dreck, I see no special reason why I should not cram this commentary with as many spoilers as possible, but I shall restrain myself. Firstly I must say, whether for aesthetic reasons or (far likelier) for budgetary ones, it was an inspired choice to film this version of 'Nightfall' in India since, as the planet has a total of six suns with at least one in the sky at any given time (excepting of course, Nightfall itself) it rather stands to reason that the inhabitants of this planet be, by and large, of a decidedly swarthy complexion. It's a pity that the scientific faction and their allies are represented almost exclusively by lighter-skinned actors, but perhaps the scenarists in charge guessed that since (in their view) scientists spend all their time in laboratories hunched over instruments, they would not be as exposed to the constant sunlight. Evidently they forgot about bureaucrats, city-dwellers, monks and the like. The result is not a particularly good endorsement for science and its progressive outlook insofar as human races are concerned. Having said this, let me say also that the subterranean Darklings (whom I must say are suitably menacing in their relentless, sword-swinging advance) are also dark-skinned when, by logic, they should be like albinos in appearance (again evidently, the writers never read H. G. Wells's "The Time Machine"). Our hero with the magic hands may perhaps be taken as a Christ-analog of sorts as the world approaches its Apocalypse...an unnecessary character, really, despite his handy talents (pun unintended), since the original Asimov tale functioned quite well enough without bringing in the truly mystical. Having made these observations, I should allow as how the characters' Americanish aspects and Earth terminologies are necessary to an extent, to give the simpler audience members familiar aspects to hold onto in an alien world (admittedly not much of an excuse, but it's the 'hoi polloi', as the men in suits might put it, that brings in the lion's share of the box-office receipts). Conversely, the exotic temples certainly do carry an alien ambiance for those not familiar with monumental Hindi architecture and its like. And the final clash between science's efforts to explain and record the phenomena in order to prevent destruction and bloodshed versus the fearful priesthood's efforts to thwart this blasphemous delving into God's domain precisely by inciting the even more terrified populace into just this sort of unreasoning violence is more suspensefully rendered than in the 1988 film, and given a tragic element by each side's unremitting suspicion and contempt of the other so that sensible discourse leading to a joint plan of preparation is made impotent. I close these observations thus-wise: I am an aficionado of detail and variety. I love to see classic tales translated faithfully to the screen, but I know also that each storyteller since the beginning of talespinning often cannot resist the chance to add his own particular spins on things. This film I would recommend to those who like science fiction but have never read Asimov, so that should they be inspired to seek it out they will have a different version to be surprised by. Those who can be fascinated by the speculative concept who also have sufficient control of their (justified) cynicism to allow their sense of wonder to expand a bit more in spite of the goofs and idiocies should find this worth seeing once; however, I cannot really recommend repeat viewings myself, and the True Believers will doubtless scorn me for recommending even ONE viewing, but as the Vulcans would have it: "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." Or, as someone else said: "There is room enough under the stars even for dreck." FINAL SCORE: Five out of ten, for a few imaginative elements, striking images, suspense, and at least a nominal faithfulness to the short story.

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.

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 :)