Reviews

For those of you looking for either a clear resolution, or some sense of redemption for any of the characters, or indeed humanity, you'll be disappointed.

But if you're the sort who is entertained by the uncanny and inexplicable, you may find it an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half.

This is a four part film, in which characters in each of the segments interact with an alien presence that has, within the space of an hour, apparently, inserted itself in millions of places on the planet. From the POV of humanity there is neither warning nor introduction nor explanation of any kind. After they have arrived, the new reality is what it is.

In the first segment we witness the arrival and beginning of disruption, in the second, background news indicates that no institution--scientific, military, political--have had any success in either communicating or affecting in any way any of the alien presences, called "Doors".

Segment 1 opens a lot like Cloverfield in that normal life is abruptly and inexplicably disrupted.

Segments 2 thru 4 are separate attempts of common humans attempting to come to some sort of understanding of the new reality.

If you can understand that they key to this film is that the presence is ALIEN, and that we have no precedent in dealing with anything like it, none whatsoever, so that we have no idea why they came, what they intend, what dangers (or benefits) they might confer, you'll begin to see why it's a really different film.

If you've seen the old version of "Solaris", and thought about the alien presence, this film conveys the same sense of of the unknown.

I agree with those reviewers who say that if you like it, you'll really like it, but if not, it'll be a confused mess.

I first watched it on whim about a year ago, coming away with a positive impression. Then I watched again last night, to try to see *why* I got the positive impression, and again I was initially confused, and again was motivated to continue watching, even though I'd seen it before. Thinking about it ovfgernight, I've come up with these positive aspects:

1) The setting, close-in East LA, the Los Feliz/Silver Lake/Echo Park area, mananged to capture a sort of neighborhood charm. I lived in LA, but am largely unfamiliar with the region because it has been, until recently, a bit off the beaten path. But the film captures a distinct neighborhood feel, just as one might feel in Venice, Westwood Village, Larchmont, or Fairfax.

2) The actors, themselves, were fun to watch--Garfield portraying a self-absorbed loser, and much female eye candy, plus a few very exaggerated characters, like the Homeless King.

3) There was a minor flavor of a sort of confused noir that felt, at times, like Altman's The Long Good-bye. You knew you were watching noir, but it was a less moralistic form, mainly observing a passing social scene, like Good-bye, or maybe even Liquid Sky.

4) Inexplicable plot elements that may have existed wholey, or partly, in the main character's mind. In this regard you have a POV that flirted with being an unreliable POV. A tale told by a madman...

5) An underlying hint of cryptic menace and threat, as in Lynch, but less studiously (and artificially) constructed from without, but rather being possibly a reflection of the main character's odd mindset and obsessions.

6) Finally, a very, very serious thesis is presented, and this is that contemporary life in a place like the setting is so completely devoid of meaning that the characters involved create their own, short-sighted, and self-serving realities, up to and including hallucination and contrived conspiracies of cosmic magnitude.

It's really unfocused, with unclear priorities, but there is a lot to like, if you're of a certain mindset.

This movie does everything a screwball comedy should--and does it very well, indeed.

It has a fairy-tale plot, two very charming leads, beautiful scenery and locations, and plenty of laughs and warm-fuzzies. If you liked "Sleepless in Seattle" or "A Fish Called Wanda," I recommend this film.

Enjoy! I did...!

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 first saw this film in the theatre and was duly impressed. Many years later a local TV station offered thematically related films during early weekday prime time (8-10PM)--such as "John Wayne Week," or "Hollywood Musicals." Just prior to Christmas they had a series called something like "Holiday Cheers" and--inadvertently, I hope--included this film. Later, the same station included "Reanimator" in their "Just for Kids" series.

The film itself is very intense, although somewhat mannered and likely miscast as well (early Steve McQueen would have been perfect). On the whole, it is a very powerful film, providing even in the epiphany of its title a supreme irony.