One of my all time favorites.

good back-story, and good acting

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I revisited this 80s sci-fi flick last night. This has a lot of things going for it, most notably the effects work by Fantasy II Film Effects. Yes, the same group that toiled on ALIENS and THE TERMINATOR worked on this and their miniature work is exceptional. The sets and sound design are also great. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just kinda blah with some bad 80s hair and clothes to date it. Something must have gone down during the filming because director Robert Collector, of RED HEAT with Linda Blair fame, took a pseudonym on the final film. A crew hires the spaceship The Night Flyer from Captain Royd to go and investigate something in space. What they don't know is the ship is controlled by a computer that houses the spirit of Royd's dead psychic mother. Before you can say Oedipal complex, crew members are being wasted left and right. Catherine Mary Stewart (NIGHT OF THE COMET) is the female lead and doesn't get to do much other than give a hard stare when things go wrong. Rocker Michael Des Barres shows up as a psychic whose head ends up bisected when he is on the wrong end of a laser. Worth checking out once I guess which shows you how much of a sucker I am for watching it twice. Based on a novel by George R.R. Martin.

Look at these people! Those funny hairdos! All this mist! And listen to the music! Yes, this film was done in the eighties.I like the eighties, but I don't like this film.I admit, I had read George R. R. Martin's novella on which "Nightflyers" is based, before, so I was extremely prejudiced in regard to this film. The universe that Martin created in the seventies is the most haunting and beautiful science fiction realm I have ever entered. "Nightflyers" isn't his best story, but it is exciting (Martin couldn't write a boring story even if he tried), it has a nice prologue and a great ending and it is about a hundred times better than its adaptation.Screenplay is horrible. Production design of the interiors looks very low budget. Cast is mediocre. Editing is confused. Music is forgettable. Yes, there are some nice old fashioned special effects shots, but they don't save the film.George R. R. Martin's stories and novels have always been too intelligent, too beautiful and too sad to be considered source material for Hollywood blockbusters. Thank god, I should say.

This sci-fi/horror film is very unusual.I really don't want to spoil it but it has a slow beginning and middle but the climax is a long intense ending!If you haven't seen this movie before than give it a chance,it'll be a different experience for the sci-fi and horror film fan!

I remember this movie well, unfortunately not fondly. I had read the story by Martin almost a year before this movie came out and like a sucker, I was one of many in line to see it at my local cineplex. The horror!! No, not the supposed horror to be witnessed in the movie, but the horror of how bad this movie is. Great actors like John Standing, Michael Praed and Catherine Mary Stewart try desperately to make this dog of a film fly as a genuine sci-fi horror movie, and unfortunately they wind up failing in the process. I actually don't know what was darker, the sets they used to film the movie on or the theater but it was attrocious, especially with all that stupid mist clouding the scenery. I guess in the future, humidifiers run amok. Skip this one, unless your a sadist that enjoys seeing poor actors chew vast amounts of scenery, stick with the book instead.