The Night Flier (1997) User Reviews

Much better than I expected!

[Snake-666 · 6/10 · 16 July 2003]

I'm not really a great fan of vampire movies, in fact there are very few that I could actually name that I like, nonetheless I rented ‘The Night Flier' because the DVD cover looked rather interesting but I still didn't expect much from this movie.

Richard Dees (Miguel Ferrer) is a journalist for a sleazy and morbid weekly publication named ‘Inside View' and is assigned to cover the story of a mysterious pilot who flies into rural airports and kills whoever is there, draining the victim of all their blood. At first Richard doesn't want the story but after seeing how big a story it could be and also wanting to put ambitious young journalist Katherine (Julie Entwistle) firmly in her place he accepts the assignment and goes in search of information on the killer he later nicknames The Night Flier.

I was very surprised by the quality of this movie. Currently I am moderately wary of Stephen King adaptations and with it also being a vampire movie my hopes were not particularly high. The first ten minutes or so of ‘The Night Flier' are fairly slow moving and rather tedious but that soon changes as ‘The Night Flier' becomes a quite adept thriller. It's not a typical vampire movie and that is probably why I enjoyed it. Instead, ‘The Night Flier' is more of a crime drama as the movie is directed towards uncovering the killer rather than stopping the killer. This makes it an interesting thriller in a way and despite some noticeably gory scenes stays away from the obvious idea of concentrating solely on the killer's activities. Tension is built up exceptionally by not concentrating too much on The Night Flier. The way the movie plays out gives it a strong purpose as it leads to a blistering finale. What we are left with is a story about a man on the edge who will do anything to get his story. The character of Richard is a bitter man, possibly socially maladjusted and one has to question whether he is in some way disturbed by all that he has witnessed in his life? He shows mental strength in his pursuit of success and seemingly fears nothing, showing no compassion or sympathy for the feelings of others yet there are still moments when he comes across as a much `softer' human being. Miguel Ferrer does an excellent job of portraying Richard and his performance in the last ten minutes of the movie is almost profound. The ending is brutal, in some ways shocking and definitely not what I expected. By the end it becomes obvious that there were two levels of horror working in this movie that came together well to leave us with ‘The Night Flier'.

There were flaws with the movie though, a couple of plot holes and many unanswered questions, though perhaps that the intent was to leave an air of mystery over the movie. Apart from Ferrer I don't think the movie was well cast as most of the other actors didn't really seem to fit the tone of the film. Furthermore, despite many great make-up effects there were also a few (one in particular) that looked awful and seemed to be totally out of place with the rest of the film. The movie was also a little slow in places and does not really get very good until about a third of the way through. These few faults though aren't really enough to harm the enjoyment and whilst this may not be to everyone's liking I personally believe it to be a well made and appealing movie. My rating for ‘The Night Flier' – 7/10.

Miguel Ferrer in a Great Role

[fouregycats · 7/10 · 21 February 2017]

Miguel Ferrer breathed life into the role of jaded tabloid reporter Richard Dees, who is determined to chase down the Night Flier, a serial killer who exsanguinates his victims as he travels from place to place in a small plane. Ferrer's character is a driven, self centered man who has no interest in life other than his next sensational byline.

A young female competitor brings out the worst in him, and he leaves her behind while he pursues the vampire responsible for the killings. What Richard encounters is more than he bargained for. The ending is actually better than for most of King's stories.

The acting, especially Ferrer's, is good. He also appeared in the TV miniseries adaptation of King's novel, The Stand, the same year The Night Flier was made. May Ferrer rest in peace; we will miss him.

A notch above most King films.

[InfoGod · 6/10 · 17 February 1999]

This movie is a notch above most King films.

I own the DVD of this film and I have to say that Director Mark Pavia did an excellent job with this film. Especially with the end. The end is a great tribute to George A. Romero's style but it goes further and becomes creepier than anything I've seen in recent memory. I caught the last fifteen minutes of this film on cable one night and I was hooked. I remember thinking wow what a stylish film what the hell is this? So I researched and found out the title and bought the film.

The film suffers from a lame screenplay and some stiff acting. Miguel Ferrer was excellent, as was Dan Monahan. Michael H. Moss and Julie Entwisle were a bit stiff. All in all this is a good horror movie and the DVD transfer is sharp and the colors are precise. The sound balance is natural, without over-placement of artificial sound effects.

Watch it alone on a stormy night!

One Of The Best... The Bottom Line

[the_last_shadow_2000 · 17 May 2002]

This movie was absolutely great. Of course it had some bad clips but overall, the scenery, plot, and charactors were far out the best. The ending was really strange and hard to understand but you got to love it. Oh yeah, and check out the villians face... some freaky stuff... nine out of ten!!!

Low budget it might be, but this offbeat vampire story is extremely worthwhile

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 4 September 2016]

Films like this fill me with hope for straight-to-video flicks. For hours I'll sit through endless trash, totally irredeemable and pointless. But occasionally, very occasionally, something interesting will turn up, as is the case with this film. Don't be put off by the fact it's been languishing in the dark for nearly three years before release in the UK, as THE NIGHT FLIER is a highly enjoyable and in some ways, old-fashioned, thriller.

The plot comes across a bit like an episode of THE X-FILES, with a journalist (instead of an FBI agent) interviewing suspects and gradually getting closer and closer to the killer of the story. This isn't cliché land, though, as the 'hero' of the story, played by Miguel Ferrer, is for a change a totally heartless character, out for his story and nothing else. In fact there are no sympathetic people in this film at all, everybody is out for themselves, whether it be for fame, fortune, or just plain food in the vampire's case. A lot of people found Ferrer's performance to be misjudged and criminal, that in a lot of ways he is actually more evil than the vampire he seeks. Ferrer is cynical to the point of hopelessness, walking around with his camera and snapping dead people like a birdwatcher would take pictures of birds. A car accident he coincidentally passes he regards as a "bonus", photographing the sprawled corpses with relish. Although Ferrer seems to be typecast in villainous roles, it's something he does brilliantly.

And I did feel sorry for him too by the time the finale arrived. Okay, so he had been warped by the sickness around him, but he was still human, just at mercy from the own dark side of his soul. Unfortunately, apart from Ferrer's performance, the rest of the acting in the film is of a low standard, with Julie Entwistle supplying a pretty face but little depth. Thankfully Ferrer is on screen for most of the running time (yes, the film focuses on him instead of the vampire, refreshingly). I was glad that this film didn't bother with all the standard talk about vampires being killed with garlic and stakes, in fact the makers knew that the audience would already know what a vampire was so there was little reason to explain.

Okay, so the film does fall foul of some of the conventions of modern horror (i.e. the scenery is littered with bloodied corpses at every opportunity, there's little plot to move things along, it's more like a series of linked scenes), but it overcomes these flaws and turns out to be a nice little gem of a film, offbeat and different enough to appeal to the fan tired of slug-like films, bloated with gore, like WISHMASTER and its sequel. The vampire himself wears an old fashioned cape (I would have sworn it was the one that previously belonged to Lugosi, except he was buried in it) and looks like a decayed version of the guy from SALEM'S LOT. The makeup is very good, and used only briefly to be more shocking (except thanks to advertisers they smeared the image in close up all over the posters and video boxes, ruining the impact. This really annoyed me as the vampire's face was hidden throughout the film, yet the suspense coming from his unknown appearance was ruined by the stupid box designers). The gore level is quite high, especially in the last third, and mainly takes the form of bloodied bodies.

One thing that is brilliant about this film is the twist ending, which I won't spoil, only to say that it's very similar to the ending of ARLINGTON ROAD and just as effective. There's a hallucinogenic moment where Ferrer is forced to drink the vampire's blood and sees the dead coming back to life around him, enshrouded in mist, just like in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; made more effective through the use of black and white. I loved the corpse with flashing eyes saying "can you look this way?", a reflection of what Ferrer had become, a camera and no conscience. THE NIGHT FLIER somewhat bravely breaks the boundaries of the genre, and, although disliked by many, definitely deserves at least one watch. It's also one of those films which has a long-standing appeal and can be enjoyed more than once, because it's not just about special effects.

One BIG fang. Multiple gory bite-marks.

[Vomitron_G · 6/10 · 10 February 2006]

You can say what you want about Stephen King-movies, but there's always just enough talent and budget involved to not make 'em look cheap. In THE NIGHT FLIER this talent mostly comes from actor Miguel Ferrer and SFX-artists Kurtzman, Nicotero & Berger. Ferrer is an often overlooked actor who most of the time only gets supporting rolls. But he'll always be edged in my memory as go-getter Bob Morton in Paul Verhoeven's ROBOCOP. Now he gets the chance to star in the leading roll in THE NIGHT FLIER, and he proves that he can carry a film. He was just perfect as the arrogant sleaze-reporter Richard Dees.

There's a mysterious figure flying in a black airplane and landing on small airports at night. He leaves behind him a trail of mutilated, blood-drained corpses. Richard Dees, reporter for the cheese & sleaze magazine "Inside View", is put on the case. So he gets in his airplane and starts following the same route as the vampiric murderer. Meantime, a rival reporter (the rookie Katherine Blair) is also assigned to write a story about it...

The plot is nothing too complicated, but it's built up nicely and even manages to be a bit scary from time to time. It all leads to the enjoyable final scenes at the last airport. The vampire is mostly kept in the dark throughout the movie, which helps to build-up a little tension. But don't worry, you'll be satisfied when you see it's ugly scary face in the end. Which brings us to the work of our beloved KNB-crew. The special make-up-effects are very decent and quite gory too. And I also liked the fact that the vampire is able to mess with peoples minds.

Okay, there are some improbabilities concerning some events in the plot, but lets not make a big deal out of it. Just take it as it is: It's a decent Stephen King-adaptation and a good vampire-movie, nothing more nothing less. So switch off the lights and fly with it.

"Never believe what you publish, never publish what you believe"

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 7 March 2019]

"The Night Flier" is one of the better adaptations of Stephen King I encountered so far. Although, If I didn't know it was King and I had to guess, I would assume it was Clive Barker. Both the story and its technical realization are totally average and the film leaves a very average impression, so the realistic rating would be six. However, when taking into account the budget of only a million dollars, one must acknowledge the quality of special effects that can compete with much more expensive films of the time and are very effective. The film stars Miguel Ferrer, a legend of supporting roles, who here proves that he is more than capable to carry the entire film on his shoulders. He always reminded me of Bogart and I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to see him in some more demanding roles, because I think his skills deserve much more than background roles for which he is known. And finally, I want to mention the end of the movie that, although somewhat predictable, is very powerful and striking, and for which I simply have to ignore the impression of the six I had during the entire film and raise my rating to

7/10

A fun obscure little horror movie based on a Stephen King short story.

[b_kite · 7/10 · 28 March 2022]

A fun obscure Stephen King flick that at times feels like a third unofficial Tales from the Crypt movie in that there's gore, a butthole male protagonist, and hammy over-the-top characters. There's some nice effects work from the KNB EFX Group and God how I miss Miguel Ferrer he's made for this kind of role; you know playing the same butthole type in every movie he's been in since RoboCop.

Once again, a case of reading the book (in Nightmares and Dreamscapes)

[Shan-12 · 2/10 · 26 December 1998]

Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a

50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again?

Best Vamp ever...

[midnightrane · 6/10 · 21 November 2001]

I gave this movie an extra point just for having the meanest looking, most imaginative vampire I've seen since "Nosferatu". It's not the greatest movie by any stretch of the imagination, but if you enjoy Stephen King, scary movies or just like vampires--it's worth a look.

Enjoyable Stephen King adaptation

[Coventry · 5/10 · 14 May 2003]

Miguel Ferrer is the ideal man to play the leading role in this rather gore adaptation of a story written by Stephen King. He plays a loner, Richard Dees, who's a journalist for a pulp magazine. They publish stories about psycho killers and maniacs...the bloodier the better. Since he didn't make the front page in months, he gets offered the chance to write about a sadistic man who kills the staff of small airports. He sucks out all their blood and goes from airport to airport with his own plane. A scary black one. Richard doesn't see it as an interesting story at first, so it goes to an ambitious young woman named Katherine. Because of the research see does, Richards gets intrigued after all and goes after the killer. The interviews he does with the witnesses give him the idea to call him the Night Flier. He gets obsessed by the chase and is convinced about the fact that he will found out who he is and why he sucks out all the blood of his victims...Meanwhile, Katherine doesn't give up on the story either and she also goes after the Night Flier. Richard and Katherine can't manage to work together. Richard has lost it. The only thing he can think about is getting the Night Flier and make it to the front page... Miguel Ferrer's performance is the best thing about this film. He really plays Richard Dees as a man who gets by all by himself and doesn't need anybody. He warns his new colleague about the dangers of getting involved in a story too much, but he can't deal with it himself. He's arrogant and will go over dead bodies to get the right picture. Ferrer, rarely cast in a leading role, proves here that he can handle it real well. The story is enjoyable, but far from great. Fans of loads of blood and scary faces won't be disappointed.

An interesting, though slightly flawed take on King

[SodaCan · 9/10 · 17 October 1999]

I'm not going to say that this is a great movie, or even a great horror movie. A more appropriate way of saying it might be that it's an interesting movie. Those poor filmmakers, they're starting to run out of Stephen King novels to make into movies, so they have to turn to his short stories. Usually this means what should have been a 30 minute movie is drawn out into an hour and a half or longer. But in the case of Mark Pavia's "The Night Flier", story works because Pavia is able to expand on King's original story, and he also seems to have a bit of talent as a director.

Most people complain that Miguel Ferrer's character, Richard Dees, is too mean, or something like that. QUIT COMPLAINING PEOPLE! He's suppose to be an utterly heartless, sleazy, sorry excuse of a person. You're not suppose to feel sorry for him at all as he descends to insanity. Instead having such a terrible lead character is suppose to pose the question whose the real monster? Or, actually I think it'd be more accurate to say, whose the real hero? Is there a hero? Ferrer pulls off the performance perfectly, making a character that could make James Woods or Clint Eastwood whimper in fear. Unfortunately the rest of the cast doesn't do so well, and this pulls in the movie down a little way.

Anyway, Pavia himself has a talent for gloomy atmosphere, with his overcast, gray skies and quiet music and always just slightly-off-angle photography. He expertly subdues the beginning 2/3s of the movie and then throws a bloodbath at us. It's a very well planned and a shocking move on his part.

"The Night Flier" kicks into major gear towards the end. The final, final conclusion is a little weak, but it really couldn't have ended any other way.

Overall, the couple flaws drag "The Night Flier" down to a good but not great movie, but the really cool climax and other elements make up for it, and make it a good time. Be warned, it won't leave you feeling happy or good.

The Night Flier

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 3 May 2008]

I have to say one of my choices as a horror sleeper from the 90's is this little creepy grisly effort from director Mark Pavia, based on a Stephen King story, regarding a narcissistic, manipulative, and ultimately vicious tabloid reporter who'll stoop to the lowest level to keep his story on the front page, meeting his match when he begins tailing a vampire killer flying a black Cessna plane who hypnotizes victims around plane air strips throughout Northeastern United States, the rural routes of small town America. At the bottom of his plane is maggot-filled earth, and inside, smeared throughout the controls is dried blood, collected over the his time of mutilation and death. Julie Entwisle, just a bubbly, high-spirited cutie presented as the perfect little fish to be devoured by Miguel Ferrer's cunning shark, tries to forge her way into the tabloid's upper tier, starting from the bottom with a key ability to get forms of information difficult to reach for the paper's top piranha. Anyway, we see as he flies in his own plane from destination to destination, Ferrer's Richard Dees working through the first murder sites, gathering bits and pieces from whatever he can find, through testimony and bribing coroners for photos of mutilated victims. We also get a chance to see his ways of flamboyant journalism by disturbing a victim's grave, adding ugly dead flowers and his own blood(..while even stooping so low as to move the gravestone)..everything is for getting the top story printed with extra spice.

I think the idea of the main character being a real slimeball could hurt the film for many because it's much easier to cast a likable hero who we feel sympathy for as he/she pursues the killer leaving a graphic trail of gruesome murders, with throats ripped open so badly that the head is pulled apart from the neck displaying bloody flesh. There's even one scene where the head is ripped completely from the body, placed in an appropriate area as to show those who investigate that the vampire can operate without restraint almost teasing the authorities to catch him. The opening kill shows long gashes down a male victim's face..good, gory carnage is left in this vampire's wake. The closing sequence is one that receives mixed reaction. I've read from some who love it, believing it's the most effective portion of the movie, while others believe it's the most harmful. I particularly love the scene where we have Dees, after finally becoming sickened by the airport lobby slaughter by the vampire, watching from the mirror as the invisible count takes a leak, with the urine being blood red..haha, nice touch. The B&W portion where Dees confronts victims, dressed as vampires, as the count allows him to see what it's like from the other side, I thought was a nifty little moment of nightmarish power. I think we have been spoiled rotten by DVD special features, given access into the movie-making behind-the-scenes effects process. For some, the practical effects of gore, displaying the killer's grisly methods, will receive less of an impact, but I enjoyed them even though I know how they are brought to life(..I think for some, the nasty open wounds from the vampire's finger nails look less effective, and we can understand how they were created).

I think the casting of Ferrer is ideal just because of the type of character he portrays. He indeed has a taste for bloody carnage and the vampire, through the final climactic sequence, first seeing the wake of violence of an entire group of people awaiting a trip to some unknown destination, and the B@W vision through a taste of the killer's blood, gives him an opportunity to experience just that. The audience does get what they crave, this bastard's comeuppance. He wanted that front page and gets it, but this time, Entwisle's young reporter(..who gets shafted by Dees)benefits. It's a fitting conclusion, I think, which speaks volumes for why this film must have an anti-hero as the main protagonist. I like how the film presents Dees, the backstories of those with stories to tell of past victims to him, the sleazy process of how he operates, and the way Dees falls to the one warning him to stay away. I loved the ending with how Dees, who basks in exploiting whatever works to bring him success, becomes the victim.

bloody awful

[theefinger · 1/10 · 18 February 2007]

The movie version was childish and plain awful. The acting was terrible. Everything was overdone. The short story version was MUCH BETTER, more subtle, less blatant. The movie is just alround bad. Kids and teens may get a scare out of it, but if you're grownup and you have a few marbles and have read the short story, you won't like the movie.

Too much narrative and dialog was copied straight out of the short story. The movie could have been so much better, even as a Halloween thriller.

Believe me, the short story version is far superior. Some of you, judging from the comments, are semi-literate, so you may want to brush up on reading, then have a go at the short story.

A great adaption of a great Stephen King story

[JBoze313 · 3 June 2001]

This movie, unlike almost every other movie made from a Stephen King story, is awesome. Ferrer is perfect for the role of somewhat coldhearted tabloid reporter, Dees, and he makes the movie work in the end. There are a few cheesy things about the movie, the look of the vampire being the biggest, but it's easy to look past these little things and see the movie as it is. It's creepy and it's entertaining. I have watched this movie a number of times, and I still get excited to see it coming on cinemax or HBO or whatever.

The film's look is really done well, a lot of darkness adds to the overall feel. The places used to shoot the different airports are awesome as well, great small town look, where things like this might happen, and no one would even know. I love the movie, and I think it's probably the best King adaption yet. By the way, the word can either be adaption or adaptation...just in case anyone was wondering of my use of the word.:) 9/10

Wonderfully Surprised

[Haeleah · 7/10 · 6 August 2021]

I found this gem late and may I say it was worth the digging. I was delightfully surprised to find it was not another vampire movie, it was way better. Like none of that twilight nonsense but a good solid story and a way more believable vampire. Let's just say it was very gripping and I did not roll my eyes once!

This may be the best film ever with such a silly premise

[MBunge · 6/10 · 3 April 2012]

For something based on a Stephen King short story, that looks and sounds like an overly long episode of "Tales from the Darkside", has shockingly little sex and violence, and features a villain who is laugh out loud ludicrous if you think about it, The Night Flier is a stunningly good piece of work. It is honestly creepy, bluntly engrossing and steam powered by a great character and an equally accomplished performance. This is one of those movies where you're waiting for it to suck and instead, it keeps getting better.

If I told you this film was about a tabloid reporter chasing after a vampire who wears a full-on Dracula outfit, complete with cape, and pilots a tiny, prop-engine plane from small town airport to small town airport, feasting on the middle-aged and elderly…admit it. That sounds like the premise of a horror parody, doesn't it? I mean, a real vampire who dresses like a Bela Lugosi impersonator? And he doesn't fly by turning into a bat, but by strapping himself into the cockpit of something that looks like a pair of wings got slapped onto a VW hippie van? And he sucks the blood, not from nubile lasses but from members of AARP? Does that sound scary to you?

And yet, The Night Flier is one of the more genuinely entertaining horror films I've ever seen. Largely, that's due to the central character of Richard Dees and the snarling integrity Miguel Ferrer gives him. Dees is a veteran reporter for the sort of tabloid rag that wallows in blood, scandal and outrage of all kind. He is also one of the most unrelenting pricks in the history of cinema and Ferrer fills Dees to bursting with insolent, impotent distemper. He has nothing but contempt for all the other people of the world and their delicate sensitivities. Dees is such a thorough-going bastard and Ferrer is so unflinching in his portrayal that the character blasts through any viewer enmity and becomes an admirable figure. You wouldn't want to be sitting next to a son of a bitch like Dees in a bar, but he's exactly the sort of man you want trying to uncover difficult and ugly truths. And whether Dees is jousting with his wickedly jaded editor (Dan Monahan) and a perky female reporter (Julie Entwisle) or slowing unraveling the mystery of The Night Flier, you can't take your eyes off him.

If you're looking for non-stop gore, flesh being shredded and disgusting perversion, you'll not find it here. The language is R-rated but the violence is no worse than what can be seen on most network TV cop procedural shows. The emphasis is on suspense and the smoldering anger of Richard Dees. The plot is also pretty simple, with Dees following in the footsteps of The Night Flier until he finally catches up to him. Like I mentioned, this resembles nothing so much as a good, 97 minute long episode of "Tales from the Darkside", right up to the little twist at the end.

This is a horror movie made by people who refuse to accept that the genre is only meant to appeal to unthinking teens and nihilistic freaks. They believe horror is for everyone and can engage them on more than the visceral level. It's a stark reminder of how messed up, degenerate and decadent horror films have become. So, The Night Flier isn't just a good movie. It has socially redeeming value, in addition to a buck-toothed blood sucker. What more can you ask for?

A different vampire thriller.

[Fella_shibby · 7/10 · 26 March 2016]

The story is good and suspenseful, and actually has some brains behind it as well. Saw this in the late nineties. Based on Stephen kings story. Miguel Ferrer is great as the reporter, you tend to like him but at the same time you recognize what an asshole he is and whats in store for him. This is still enjoyable enough to recommend it. Surprisingly edgy and gory, with plenty of suspense and solid cinematography. Very moody, dark, and mysterious. It is an incredibly atmospheric and gripping film. In one creepy scene they show the vampire walking invisible through a restroom while all its mirrors shatter and his footsteps pass them one by one. Had they left the vampire unseen I think it wud hav been better. It has its strong moments and its weak ones. The films look is really done well, a lot of darkness adds to the overall feel. The places used to shoot the different airports are awesome as well, great small town look, where things like this might happen, and no one would not notice. Beware of a nightmare like ending.

Estimable little gem

[amboager · 6/10 · 17 August 2006]

Despite a certain inevitable TV look and narrative this movie is possibly one of the best horrors of 90's. Mark Pavia delivers a well handled, gloomy and occasionally dirty atmosphere, that put far away his movie from the generally unaesthetically and untidy 90's horror films. Moreover there is a good amount of gore and a correct score.

Although the plot is not very original the movie is resolute in a rather ingenious way, the main character (fairly good Miguel Ferrer job as the tabloid journalist) is not precisely a "Good Person" and there are various perverse ideas behind the script. Very good ending, too.

This movie has to be one of the best Stephen King (sometimes good, generally average or mediocre writer) horror adaptations, only under CARRIE (8/10). Sorry, THE SHINING (6/10) is decent but it doesn't like me much.

This one bites!

[Warrior728 · 4/10 · 6 October 2001]

I am surprised at the good reviews many people have given this movie. It's a real b-movie stinker. I love a good vampire film, but this is at the bottom of the genre.

The atmosphere was non-existent and hokey. This movie had a silly plot, bad acting, no special effects, and no brooding Vampire mood to speak of (as the box suggests).

If you like a lot of senseless gore, with no real plot, this movie may be for you. Bur if you're looking for a good Vampire flick, you'll be sorely disappointed. This is straight to video garbage.

Good Vampire Story With a Great Leading Performance

[bakergarrett · 7/10 · 18 September 2021]

The Night Flier is a very under rated vampire movie based on the short story from Stephen King. The movie is about a sleazy tabloid reporter hunting a serial killer who travels via airplane.

There are two main things about this movie that make it worth viewing. The first is Miguel Ferrer who kills it as an unlikeable sleaze who ends up diving deeper into insanity as he tries to get the fame he wants. The second reason is what the movie has to say about tabloids and shock journalism, as it's all interesting and leads to some great dark comedy.

My complaints is that at times it seems like a really tv movie with the way it's shot and lit and some of the supporting cast are no Miguel Ferrer, espically the boss. Still check this out it's not known and worth watching.

One awful film

[Ghoul-4 · 1/10 · 23 March 1999]

The 'Night Flier' was horrible, just flat out bad. It had no 'pulse', and when it began to show faint signs of life, it 'died'. Miguel Ferrer was unbearable to watch as the lead in the film. He was so nasty and mean, I do not see how anyone could feel any remorse for his character at the end of the film. He was a total jerk. He was annoyingly bad. The scene at the end of the film that ripped off George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" showed promise, but failed to deliver. The vampire was one of the stupidest looking creatures I have ever seen. A giant rubber head, come on. It's hands looked like they were purchased at K-Mart, and the cape looked like it was purchased from Wal-Mart. And the film failed to answer many questions about the vampire. The producers seemed to have expected that whoever watched it already knew everything there was to know about the vampire. The one thing I still cannot figure out about this film is (other than who want to fund this movie) how in the wide world of lousy horror did not one person escape from the airport slaughter that takes place in the film (of course you do not get to see it happen). Come on, at least one person could get away, but not a one. That vampire killed about 50 people. I thought the blood of one person would be enough to satisfy a vampire, but not this one. It had to have a lot of blood. When you finally see the airport carnage, the shock factor was weak. But oh well, the movie was lame. As for all these people that thought this film was good, I just cannot figure it out. If you want to see a good horror film, you should not watch this or 'Scream', or any trendy prep-filled sorry excuses for a horror film. You should check out the original 1968 "Night of the Living Dead", "Dawn of the Dead", "Carnival of Souls", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Evil Dead" (1 and 2).

Serious, gory stuff!

[le canard · 9/10 · 10 May 2002]

Richard Dees is a reporter and he is a vampire because he works for a tabloid and earns his living by writing lurid stories and taking sordid pictures. He's got a despicable job and he is getting sick of it. Dwight Renfield is the Night Flier and he is a vampire too, but he is a "real" one – an evil and supernatural creature feeding itself on humans. He flies from one airfield to another across the U.S. on a black, private aeroplane. Of course he always leaves bloodless corpses behind him and Dees ends up chasing him with his tape recorder and camera. When they eventually meet, the vampire doesn't really feel like killing one of his kind, and he is ready to let him go. Yet Dees proves his curiosity will always make him chase people like the Night Flier and he will bitterly regret it. At the end of the film, everybody will see and remember Richard Dees as what he really was, that is to say a nasty character living on people's suffering. Well, this film is a great B-movie. The story is exciting, Miguel Ferrer is excellent and the film has no Hollywood-like happy ending. I strongly recommend it to anyone looking for a nice thrill and a few gallons of blood.

Plays with our desire to see the ugly

[Leechpm · 6/10 · 14 June 2016]

What is with people and needing to see everything? YouTube and magazines are stuffed with footage of real murder, real torture; and what's the attraction? Well… just to see terrible things and absorb the horror, which is messed up, and it doesn't take a genius to know that. The Night Flier certainly does.

Miguel Ferrer plays Robert Dees, a reporter from Inside Scoop, a magazine devoted to only the most morbid of news. He does it because it's a job, and like the rest of the world he gets a kick from the morbidity and he loves the blood, but he never, never, strictly never—in fear of the news perverting him—becomes personally involved, which of course gets challenged as his latest case absorbs him. Some wacko keeps flying his plane from airport to airport every night and mutilating people.

Before I even start with the hell this movie unleashed on me, I want to first mention the man behind it: Mark Pavia. This is his first major film, and he handles it as though he's directed hundreds. The pacing is perfect. Not once did I feel rushed into something or like he cut my enjoyment short, nor did anything drag for too long. And where Pavia really shines is in his uncanny ability in his frames to tease, showing so much of what we long to see, and then just barely covering it. It's like when I get a very specifically shaped gift and think I know what's inside, but never feel satisfied because the wrapper holds me one step a way from resolution.

And now, here is my evening spent with The Night Flier: first I scolded Inside Scoop and its workers for their exploitation entertainment, just as the film wanted me to, emphasizing and emphasizing how little the reporters cared about the victims. However, as the film progressed, my curiosity grew against my will about this killer… just as the reporter's did… just as the magazine's readers' did… just as the film wanted me to. And then Robert reports back about how mangled he found the victims, his boss responding, "This is great sh*t. The fatties in the supermarket line are gonna love this guy. God, I hope he kills more people," and I realized, "Oh no! I'm one of those fatties!"

That's right: The Night Flier makes you feel like a terrible person. Isn't that fun? Sure, Robert has his conflicts throughout the movie, but pretty soon I found myself not caring about him, because the conflict was in myself. For Robert, the stakes are low: if he leaves the case alone he won't have a story, and he loses a bit of pride for adhering to the killer's demands and staying away (something that could actually help him). For Katherine, the other investigator, the stakes are much higher, because she actually cares about exposing crime and making a difference in the world. She strives towards an ethical goal, and so her failure means she has failed her morality—a much more devastating stake than Robert's. And so what does The Night Flier do? Well, it teases us with Katherine as a could-have-been protagonist, then follows Robert instead, rubbing in our face we don't need Katherine and her high stakes to keep watching; we only need promise of a terrifying end. We care about Robert, but only as a tool to find the information and lead us to the action (just as we want actual reporters to do).

When The Night Flier, as if it hadn't teased us enough, finally gets to the action and the killer (who looks awesome, by the way!!) it then does something really mean: makes us care about Robert. It still reports the horror, but for the first time pities the victim, and thus really makes us feel bad. And the film ends on a very personal and sad note.

The Night Flier is a really smart film, showing a deep understanding of its interaction not with itself, but with the audience. It sadly does not go without flaws (the competition between Robert and Katherine becomes an unnecessary bore after awhile), but The Night Flier is a film aware of its every action, masterful with spectacle, and a letter to horror drenched with love… and also a lot of guilt.

What are you people on?

[enjoyuk · 1/10 · 29 April 2000]

I cannot believe the positive comments for this terrible piece of straight-to-video bargain bin trash. I have honestly never seen such poor acting in a movie for a good long time. Did anyone actually see the Boom microphone that pops down onto the screen about 3 times during the movie, this film could fill one of those movie bloopers books.

What is so scary about a rubber vampire who flies a plane and wears a £1.99 cape?.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS