Add a Review

  • Shame on you Dan Curtis! Don't you realize what made the original "The Night Stalker" movies and series such a classic was the wonderful interplay between Kolchak (Darrin McGavin) and his boss (Simon Oakland)? Kolchak and Vicenzo were colorful, if not downright cliché newspaper people. Instead, you give us Stuart Townsend, who's about as colorful as beige. You turn the focus on the show into sexual tension between Townsend and Gabrielle Union. Union, who is one of the most beautiful, bright and charismatic Hollywood actresses, gets to play straight man to a "straight man". If you were going to go for the "Muldar/Scully angle, you could have at least given us an ironically funny male lead. Instead, this series is starting off as a rejected "X Files" episode.

    "Night Stalker" needs, at least, a quirky Kolchak, say, Matthew Lillard or David Schwimmer. Look at the great success of "Doctor Who" and go back to the drawing board.

    I give the "Night Stalker" pilot a "5".
  • Wow! I am hopeful that the producers and directors of this remake take a moment to see all of the reviews written about this show. I never thought that this show would have such a large viewer ship. Did anyone notice the digital cameo of Carl Kolchek (Darren McGavin) standing in front of the desk in the pilot? There will never be another Darren McGavin, and CK will never be portrayed the way McGavin saw the character. He fit the part for that time (74-75). He fit our 'idea' of the cliché reporter. Let's face it; 'A Christmas Story' (1983) has solidified DM as a household name for future generations (my kids just watched this past Christmas all day). I think we will all miss him.

    I purchased the DVD of 'Kolchek: The Night Stalker' complete series, (all 20 episodes) as my wife had never seen the original, only this remake. Having nothing to compare this version to, she liked it and looked forward to it each week. She liked the old version too, but I have to admit, the suspense was not the same for me as it was when I was 8. (I had to sneak to watch the original).

    I think some of the reviews have been far to critical. There is oftentimes an expectation that a remake will be exactly like the original. Not unlike viewers who tuned in to see Star Trek: TNG. I have come to expect similarities between the new and old version but I do not expect a clone. I want to see a unique and different version of the original. I am nostalgic, but I have always had the 'I wonder what a version made today would be like?' with regard to all of my old shows.

    Yes, the name is similar, no the drama is not the same. When one considers the success of 'Scooby' gang sci-fi (Buffy, Angel, etc.) it makes sense that this show would take on a similar approach.

    How about Battlestar Galactica? They have the same name, but they are not the same sci-fi drama. I've come to expect a similar story line in remakes but not exact, mostly updated.

    I think this show is a 7, better than average, nicely updated to fit today's audience but not the best it can/could be. It could be refined/polished.
  • It hooked me. I had to watch more and when I did, I was glad I did. I confess that the first time I watched, it was purely out of curiosity. Having grown up with the original show, I could not resist the nostalgic draw of hearing it was back and seeing what they had done with it. I just had to see it. I was one of the few that appreciated the homage to the original character by having him digitally inserted into the show at one point and even felt a bit of pride that they went to such trouble to do so. I found myself liking the show because of such things almost instantly.

    I then was impressed by the show on its own merit very quickly. It departed from the original format without question, but made very clear it was worthy of watching. Not only was it interesting and had the classic "neat spooky stuff", but it had plot twists and storyline that kept you watching. It also had enough intelligence in the writing that you didn't feel like it was campy and childish. In a time when shows like CSI are top billing, this kind of show was ranking right up there with writing that was suspenseful and well thought out. It kept you guessing. In this day, when an audience can say, "Wow, I didn't see that one coming," you know you have done well.

    Studio executives don't want to hear this kind of praise though. It is nice, but it doesn't pad the bottom line. Fine, here is something for their pockets to listen to then: Right now people are hungry for being scared. They want things that are spooky and go bump in the night. We watch movies like SAW 5 and Texas Chainsaw Massacre 7 and have a morbid fascination with CSI shows like there is no stopping us. You have a your foot in the door with a sure thing here. The old name got you in the door, so don't let this go. Make it better than ever. Figure out where to take it with the writers for another couple of seasons and run with it and you'll make tons of cash. People want this. Scare them and not in a Buffy kind of way. Supernatural is going there too, but in a different way. You have an almost X-files approach here and you should exploit it to the fullest. People want to be scared and have a fixation on death and love being afraid. They also need to know that there are some people out there who are just as afraid as the rest of us, but still are willing to risk it all to save the world, so bring on the dark heroes. You have Dirty Harry with a camera and a pen chasing monsters and half of the ghosts are in his own closet. This is good stuff and as close as you can expect to get to the flavor of the original without feeling like it is a rip-off. The only thing you risk is writer burn out as they continue to reach for bigger and better things each week, but since when did that ever stop a series? You should be good for at least another season or two and by then maybe even a movie or two. Come on, think big and go for the money while spoiling us with what we want...more Night Stalker.
  • When the show was first announced it sounded promising, mostly because producer Frank Spotnitz was a veteran of "The X Files"...and as we all know, several "X Files" veterans were big fans of the original "Night Stalker" movies and series.

    Now, whenever a cultural icon is reinvented for a new era, one always expects a few changes. I don't think we were expecting this many.

    Carl Kolchak, as you may recall, was a down-on-his-luck loner, a middle-aged, average-looking has-been reporter whose primary positive qualities were his investigative skills, his tenacity and his flair for mocking authority. He had a part buddy/ part adversarial (mostly the latter) relationship with his boss, Tony Vincenzo. The adversarial part of their relationship came to a head when Kolchak came upon the story that first piqued his interest in the supernatural: a killer who appeared to be an actual vampire. The police, not wanting to look stupid, were not about to admit that there really might be things that go bump in the night running around their city...and Vincenzo (being not exactly akin to Ben Bradlee) was only too happy to quash the story in order to keep the authorities happy. This, of course, rubbed Kolchak the wrong way. Kolchak was dedicated to getting the truth out, no matter what.

    Well, that brings us to the new Kolchak.

    In ABC's latest incarnation, Kolchak is changed almost beyond recognition. Now he is young, good-looking and morose. He no longer seems to have arguments with Vincenzo. Most surprisingly, perhaps...he was married. His wife was killed by one of these bumpy-night-things, and now he pursues stories about them. Instead of operating alone, he's joined by his partner Peri and staff photographer Jain.

    This makes for an awfully weird feel. Watching a young, handsome Kolchak investigate a story with his capable partner Peri and wide-eyed photographer Jain, you get the feeling you're actually in Metropolis with Clark, Lois and Jimmy.

    Those changes alone are enough to alienate a number of the "Night Stalker" faithful. But there's an underlying feeling, a style, that's also very different from the original books, movies and series.

    Whereas the "old" Kolchak used to narrate events in a snappy, factual way, Spotnitz has fallen back into his "X Files" habit of just using opening and closing narration which, even then, is more on the philosophical than factual side. It's a change that removes a considerable amount of the pacing and realism from the show. And if you're looking for the old Kolchak who had a smart mouth and was ever quick with a quip...forget it. He's not here. This Kolchak is more moody than mouthy.

    Even the music is languid. In the original movies, the score was jazzy yet kind of morbid, a style that fit the stories to a T. Here, you'll find music more like what you'd hear on...well, "The X Files".

    Then there's the Vincenzo thing. "Old" Kolchak had to battle not only the authorities but his boss. This one is clearly Kolchak's pal, which removes half the conflict from the show. Believe it or not, there are none of those wonderful Kolchak-Vincenzo screaming matches here. Instead, we're offered an FBI agent who wants to pin the death of Kolchak's wife on Kolchak himself. Shades of The Fugitive. (Ironically, the agent's name is Fain. Bernie Fain was an FBI agent buddy of Kolchak's in the original novel.)

    One truly bizarre feature of the show: this Kolchak drives a newish yellow Mustang and lives in a penthouse suite with a built-in swimming pool. Give me a break!

    The true test of whether this is a worthy "Night Stalker" or not is...if you removed the title from the show, and changed the names of the characters to Smith and Jones...would anybody recognize it? Chances are, beyond the fact that the stories are supernatural and the hero works at a newspaper, no, you would not. Kolchak no longer resembles Kolchak, either figuratively or literally.

    The one bright spot in the show was a digitally-inserted "in-joke" in which Darren McGavin, replete with seersucker suit and straw hat, was inserted into the foreground of a shot of the newsroom. Unfortunately, it served only to remind the viewer of the big difference between the original Kolchak and Spotnitz's Kolchak.

    And finally -- without giving away spoilers -- there's the puzzling shot of Kolchak's hand at the end of the episode which ties in with the murder of his wife. That was just weird.

    The fault does not all lie with Frank Spotnitz. In a TV Guide interview, he stated that the "mission" aspect of the show -- finding the killer of Kolchak's wife -- was inserted at the insistence of the suits at ABC, who felt Kolchak needed a stronger motivation for going after ghoulies and ghosties. Nevertheless, this "Night Stalker" does not have the jazzy music, the narration, the pacing or the comic patter -- in other words, the feel -- of the original. It looks more like "The X Files" than "The Night Stalker".

    Oh well. It's not a bad show. It just should've been much, much better.
  • foxfirehounds28 January 2024
    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...
  • After reading some of the negative comments of certain viewers here on this new series I was intrigued to watch it so I could get a personal opinion. To begin with, there's not even a single episode of the old Night Stalker of the seventies that I missed and that because I'm a huge fan.

    This new series has very little in common with the original ,old series. That, however, doesn't make it bad. Perhaps giving the series the same title was a promotional mistake but the series is definitely not.

    Stuart Townsend is a superb actor, carrying with him very convincingly the air of a very special, talented reporter whose life was messed up by an, unexplained tragedy ,something that makes his life even more lonely and tortured but at the same time fills him with the resolution to find out. This necessary feeling Stuart conveys to the audience in an exceptional way.

    Gabrielle Union is a very clever young reporter who in this group of three, plays the role of the doubting Thomas in a unique way .The audience senses an attraction and a respect for Kolchac but at the same time some fear that the man might be unstable and therefore untrustworthy. She prefers to distrust any references to the occult or mystery but also has the honesty to acknowledge something extraordinary when it happens. She gives a very good account of that sort of person and is an excellent actress apart from being very sweet and extremely sexy.

    Equally talented and a very interesting character is the actor Eric Jungmann who plays the role of their assistant. An eager young journalist trying with enthusiasm and diligence to get into the gist of reporting he is all the time swayed between the 2 protagonists with the equally strong character trying to built the right profile of the pro he wants to be at the same time maintaining a balance with where his own instinct leads him.

    Finally a very solid and convincing performance from the actor Cotter Smith who plays the role of the experienced,sometimes tough editor who however has a genuine love and interest in his reporters whom he wishes to succeed in their missions every time.

    All in all I find this series very thrilling and really hope it goes on forever.
  • Take a series with fine character actors playing quirky, interesting roles, inject it with an equal mix of horror and humor, and you have the original 1974 "Night Stalker" series. Exclude everything that made the original show a cult classic, and you have the flaccid, boring "X Files" clone that was the 2005 reboot.

    In the original series, Carl Kolchak was a dumpy, cynical middle-aged man whose determination to uncover the facts got him into trouble and often made for hilariously awkward situations. In the new series, Kolchak is young, handsome, steely-eyed, and morose. It ruins the character, transforming Kolchak into something as vapid and generic as a male fashion model.

    In the original series, Kolchak and his editor, Tony Vincenzo, were each about 50 years old and maintained an antagonistic friendship based on mutual (if grudging) respect. In the new show, Vincenzo was twice Kolchak's age, which recast their relationship as master and apprentice. That doesn't work any better than Kolchak as Brooding Millennial.

    In the original series, Kolchak worked alone. In the reboot, he had two partners, neither of whom was any more interesting a character than Carl himself.

    In the original series, Kolchak's foils included a vampire, a werewolf, a zombie, an invisible space alien, a headless biker, a swamp monster, and even the original Jack the Ripper. Some of the monsters were silly-looking, but that somehow added to the show's appeal. In the reboot, Kolchak's foils are frequently human or just amorphous. And like the show it emulates, there's a big, bad conspiracy going on. God forbid a 21st-century horror series not have an ongoing storyline!

    Thankfully, this pathetic drivel went off the air after a mere six episodes (ten were produced). The original series made it to 20.
  • Okay. To start with, I agree with all or most of the other reviewers about one fact, that this is nothing like the original except for some of the characters' names and other similar things. But even though this series strays far from the original I really like it. I'm a big fan of the original series and TV movies, but I really liked this "remake" as well! You don't have to be familiar with the original at all in order to like this. It's good as a stand-alone series. I thought the characters were quite good and were well-acted. The story lines were also good. Unfortunately it was canceled in the middle of a two-part episode! How low could the network go! Then later on I found out the the entire series, including un-aired episodes, was put on DVD. So the two-part episode was available to be seen in its entirety. Very good. If you can put aside the association with the original series and TV movies with the similar name, I recommend renting or buying the DVD set and watching this with an open mind. It really is very good, and I highly recommend it. I give it 9 stars out of 10. I'd give it more if it had not gotten canceled so early. There just aren't that many stories in the series.
  • Johnny_West27 January 2021
    Vampire Boy (Stuart Townsend) and Journalizm Diva Gabrielle Union were beyond horrible. Kolchak lived in a multi-million $$$ mansion overlooking Hollywood, he drove a Ferrari or Mazzerati. Gabrielle Union was just off the wall herself, super gigantic ego; she carried around a plastic barrier so nobody would breathe their lowliness on her (pre-Pandemic). Vincenzo was an even bigger disappointment, played by Cotter Smith as a WASPy version of Vincenzo who was more like Michael Douglas in Wolf of Wall Street. This show had absolutely nothing to do with the original Kolchack.

    At one of the last episodes, they inserted old footage of Darren McGavin as Kolchak, standing by a desk and walking away. That was very sad.
  • loco_7329 December 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    In the spirit of full disclosure, and just because I am simply lazy, this review also appears as a general posting on a message thread on the show's IMDb page...

    I personally liked the show. I actually saw it on re-runs on Space (the Canadian counterpart to SyFy) and not during the original airing of the show. It struck me that this new incarnation of "Night Stalker" was a show very much in the vein of "Millenium", a wonderful, wonderful show created by Chris Carter and starring the talented Lance Henriksen. It had that same brooding, dark and suspenseful atmosphere, but more than that it also had almost the same substance and heart as that show. Style was never, at least in my mind, put over substance. Of course as others have pointed it also shared certain similarities with "X-Files".

    It is true, that it was quite dark for a prime-time, network TV series, and liking it might have been an acquired taste...but the contention that this show was overly pessimistic, hopeless and depressing, is in my mind, unfair and unwarranted. The show only aired six episodes before it was cancelled and never got the chance to establish itself, evolve and show its true potential. We will never know what would and could have been. On the DVD set Frank Spotnitz does hint at and discusses what the future had in store for the characters and their respective story lines as well as the over all theme of the show, Good VS. Evil.

    Stuart Townsend and Gabrielle Union were excellent together as was the rest of the cast. The stories in each episode were crafted as stand-alone narratives, but they also neatly fitted into the overall arch of the show and Kolchak's one-man crusade to find out the truth about what happened to his wife as well as expose all the strange cases he came across, trying to understand the nature of the dark, the evil, the things that go-bump in the night, which most of us ignore and pretend don't exist.

    The more I think about it, the more I see "Night Stalker" if not parallel to, at least mirror other similar shows like HBO's "Carnivale" and CW's "Supernatural". But "Millennium" remains the show most comparable to "Night Stalker".

    Lastly I have to add, that the narration which Stuart Townsend did at the beginning/intro and end/outro of each episode was quite wonderfully chilling and gave me goosebumps each and every time, and I mean this as the highest compliment. That world-weary voice Carl Kolchak brought every week, heavily burdened by the knowledge and awareness of the darkness and evil which lurk out there, made this show a must-see! Too bad it didn't get a fair shake...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Sci-fi channel is currently running an NS marathon. WHat exactly is the point? One only has to watch the opening five minute of the first installment to realize what an unmitigated FARCE the whole thing is. The original series earned it's richly deserved cult status by blending equal parts humor and horror, and the UPDATED series unfortunately tosses this concept onto the scrap heap. The other critical element that is missing is a little thing called CONFLICT. This new Kolchak has a support system resembling a CHEERING SECTION. His new-age editor is the genteel, paternal sort and any resemblance to the previous series incarnate is virtually impossible to detect. And the idea of partnering him with some attractive but bland eye-candy, as well as a sycophantic toady, is just too laughable for words. Frank Spoonitz deserves the lion's share of blame for this fiasco. He SO desperately wanted to put his own stamp on this series that he forgot to make suspenseful or funny or scary or provocative or just plain mildly interesting. Calling David Chase.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    May Contain Spoilers**** Disappointing as named. Did they even bother to WATCH the original show? We already have X-Files, and it was far superior to this X-erox.(sic) Too bad. The actors are fine--for a different type of show--they're all very pretty. If the show wasn't parading itself under the banner "Night Stalker" it might even have potential, but it's hard to get past that.

    The original show had character in itself and had CHARACTERS--great character actors playing interesting roles. It was fun, entertaining. The new version is dreary and depressing. The new show uses the old saw about the the murdered wife and her unsolved crime...Are you kidding me? The Fugitive, Monk, First Wave...Stealing from the stuff they already stole, huh?

    And, since when does Kolchak have anyone around him who believes a word he's saying? Like two, sexy cohorts.

    A huge disappointment, since expectations are not met. Maybe some day, some one will get it and remake the series properly.
  • I remember watching this show as a kid and being instantly hooked. I spent years searching for it and I'm glad I finally found it. I love the paranormal and loved that Stuart Townsend and Gabrielle Union were in this. It may not be the original, but it's a different take and I think it does well. The writing is great as well.

    Just to reiterate, no it's not the original, which has occasional humor. This is a much darker take. I hate that other (older) viewers unfairly compared it to the original and never gave it a chance. They ruined something that would would have been great ... how unsurprising.
  • .....and never have I been so disappointed. I am not sure why this series was even produced at all?! Did they hope to draw in the fans of the old show? If so, this was not the way to do it. None of the charisma of Darren McGavin is evident in the "acting" of the current "Carl Kolchak". I'm also not sure why he has a partner. Since they went to all the trouble of lifting the following from the original: Kolchak drives a Mustang (updated), works as a reporter, works for Tony Vincenzo, you'd think they would also try and establish some of the charm of the original show (no one believes Kolchak, his bumbling, wacky clothing, intrusive style of reporting, etc. In their defense, I suppose they DIDN'T want to remake the series over again, perhaps they wanted to completely re-do the series and attract the younger viewer - but why call it the "Night Stalker"? They would have done just as well (which was horribly) with "Night Reporter Who Bears Little to No Resemblance to Carl Kolchak"
  • ABC had too high of expectations for this show. By pitted it against CSI on Thursday night, which is now occupied by Grey's Anatomy, they put a bullet in the back of the show. It went against titans, expected to become the cult classic like the original, and lost.

    This show was not supposed to be the original, as people often forget. The new, re-imagined, and more understandable Night Stalker had dozens of great qualities about it. From the cast to the cinematography to the production team, if given the appropriate time to gain its footing it would've become great. Not all shows were as popular as they are now including Law & Order, Seinfeld and the X-Files, but were given a chance.

    Which was what this series should've been given. It does have fans who still fight for it and will continue to fight even when we should move on. In the end, we have the DVD to tide us over. But that doesn't mend the wound of negligence.

    If you have a chance, check this show and see if you don't love it by the second or third episode.
  • This was a good idea (bringing back Kolchack: The Night Stalker) unfortunately everyone who bought the rights to the name completely ignored what made the original a great show. No matter what glitz and glamor you crank out - there is nothing that compares to a great character driven drama. And trust me, this was nothing resembling a great character driven drama. The main characters are completely bland and forgettable just going through the motions. No matter what the powers that be think works as an update to the show - this show needed an old touch to it. Darren McGavin was a great character actor and that is the first thing this show needed - someone who has something interesting about them. But it would also take more than one character actor - the original had several stand out performers. People who were not bland, people who you remembered. Kolchak should be played by a middle aged man - not some young generic stud. Have him work with the generic people if you want, but the main character has to be one who acts interesting. This was indeed an X-Files Clone, and a pale one at that. So much for formulas on what to put in a show - put in something that stands out instead. Thoughly disgusted and disappointed with this tripe.
  • Okay I've read so many comments of people thinking Night Stalker was terrible and I'm quite surprised. Not only to I hate watching television and think it's a waste of time but also quite rarely find a show that catches my interest. Night Stalker did just that, I did not miss one episode of that series, not I own the DVD and know all about the series. The only bad thing about Night Stalker is that they took it out of production and did not conclude anything in the DVD. Night Stalker is one of the best productions I've seen on TV. I think Stuart Townsend is a great actor who continues to be disregarded for one reason or another. Gabrielle Union also did awesome in the series, she was amazing. You can't expect this series to be like the original, if they were to do the same as the original it wouldn't grab attention because it's the same thing. I think some people are afraid of change because that's just what this is. An investigative show, with a little horror, and some mystery thrown in. ITS BRILLIANT!
  • When this was announced I knew there would be trouble.Kolchak is one of TV land's most beloved and remembered supernatural-themed shows.One of the reasons being the superb casting of the Late,greats Darren McGavin,and Simon Oakland.

    As a big fan of the original I was looking forward to a faithful updating.The studio just used the name to launch a generic x-files wanna-be.

    This time we get Sturt Townsand and Gabrielle Union.They are not bad.The stories that aired had a little promise.The whole thing played like a wake.None of the charm or wit of the original to be found,and ended up very disappointing.

    Townsend is a bit underrated in my book.He could have grew into the role if given time and better writing.A bit too young for the character in my book.

    With Time this might have developed into something good.The show needed to start with a BANG;Not on mute.They just went for a serious tone with nothing to balance it out.How could the network have the stomach to green-light this and send it out into the public.

    It was clear from the start they had no idea of the following the original had.

    I expected more.
  • My expectations confessedly did not run very high when word of this project came to me. I mean, let's be honest, the original Night Stalker was a one of a kind gem that only happens once in awhile. It was a show ahead of its time, and its legacy has grown tremendously over the years despite its one year run. Star Trek ran for only three years you might remember. I also understand that things must change for different audiences. But why would writers with some ability(from The X-Files - a great show I might add)change everything except the names The Night Stalker, Karl Kolchak, and Vincenzo. They are the only links this new show has with the old. The way the series is shot is markedly different, the tones of the stories markedly different, the actors(for lack of a better word) are markedly different and so on. I can guess what might have happened: genre writers who grew up on the old show pitched the idea of remaking the series to the networks wanting to pay homage and make a new, exciting series. I think they probably wanted to stay close to the heart of the old show. A great central character that was affable, unflappable, and played by a guy that could act would be needed. They probably knew that the show's success would hinge on this actor's representation of the role. Darren McGavin was a great actor, and yes, now he is way too old to assay this role. But why in the world did the producers get some guy like Stuart Townsend. He looks like he popped out of the pages of GQ magazine and has so little range. This is the guy that is going to convey humor in much of what he says and does amidst the surroundings of stark horror and investigative reporting? Is anyone out there buying him as a gritty reporter in Los Angeles or anywhere else? You know how little faith the producers had in him when they assigned him a beautiful helper. Gabrielle Union, a beautiful woman but an average at best actress, wanders through the inane dialog with little conviction. She is helping Kolchak? I was just flabbergasted with how bad this remaking of the series was from the perspective of looking at the show's foundation. Maybe if it wasn't called The Night Stalker then I could accept it for the mediocre sci-fi rehash that it is. But when you call it something that brings smiles to the faces of horror fans from the seventies you then have an obvious comparison to make. There is no comparison at all. Absolutely none. This is dreck when placed on those standards. The show is talky with little action or suspense. It fails miserably in evoking any kind of fond memories for anyone who is watching it because of its name. Just a pitiful shame and a pitiful show.
  • jv11-16 July 2006
    It was great and really cool show, with a very well-told scary stories, good acting (Stuart Nownsend and Gabrielle Union especially) and directing (Daniel Sackheim's Pilot and Rob Bowman's The Five People You Meet In Hell are good examples). If you like The X-Files and all these shows about paranormal - well, it seems like you're gonna like this new Night Stalker, but just try to be more open-minded: it's not The Night Stalker with Darin McGavin, and it's not Mulder and Scully hunting monsters and UFOs. It's just great new TV-show with an X-Filish mood and The Night Stalker's Carl Kolchak. The rest is different, and it's absolutely great on its own. My favorite episodes are Pilot, The Five People You Meet In Hell, and Malum - it was totally outstanding! And The X-Files genius Darin Morgan wrote a script for Night Stalker and you can find this script on the Night Stalker: The Complete Series DVD.
  • Calling a program "Night Stalker" and the main character Carl Kolchak, does not mean that this program bears any resemblance at all to the earlier series. The brief appearance of Darren McGavin, star of the original series, in the first episode, seems to have been an unsuccessful attempt to give the new show some kind of official approval. But the light-hearted approach and genuine comedy of the original series is completely lacking. Kolchak is saddle with a side-kick and another hanger-on. Vincenzo does nothing and the actor seems to be completely lost. As I suspect is the older viewer who may have seen Kolchak – The Night Stalker and may remember it. The stories are no worse than on many other shows, but then again they are no different from other shows. The on-going problem of who killed Kolchak's wife just gets in the way. And the answer surely is simply that Kolchak had no wife. The result is simply yet another show designed for late-night viewing, which falls into the category of "If you miss it, you won't miss it." My rating of 6 is probably one more than it deserves, and is given in memory of the original and superior series.
  • i first noticed a new series of Night Stalker was coming out through i tunes and i was bored so i decided to download the pilot episode. after that i was officially hooked on the show i don't know y it was canceled. it drew me and many other of my friends in well and was a good twist of the older night stalker i give this series a 10 without a doubt and also hope that this review contributes to the show coming back 2 the air or at least ABC to release the last 2 episodes of this awesome show. i honestly don't know why ABC canceled it at least finish the season. also if my review wasn't enough look at the 200+ reviews begging to get this show back on (i tunes)
  • I loved the original "Night Stalker" TV series. It played on TV when i was a kid and succeeded in scaring me silly a few times. The female vampire episode gave me nightmares! I was excited when I heard they were "updating" it and I like Stuart Townsend. However they went ahead and changed EVERYTHING that made the original so good.

    First off--Townsend is a good actor but he's way too young for the role. Darren McGavin was older and much better. Also this crap about his wife being killed by monsters (or something) was pointless. The house he lived in was beautiful but WAY too expensive for a reporter and totally out of place in this context. His two "helpers" were just annoying. The original Kolchak worked alone. The original series also sometimes didn't give you a good clear look at the monsters. I realize this was probably for budget constraints but it worked in the series favor. The glimpses you got were far more scary then shoving it in your face. This redo ignores that and gives us too-perfect monsters and such which you see clearly.

    This was a redo where everything was changed far too much. I stopped watching after episode 3. Not worth looking for (although I doubt that it's ever going to pop up on TV again). Stick with the original.
  • kllj-220 August 2006
    I wasn't all that crazy about the new Night Stalker the first time I saw it because I still had the original with Darren Mac. lodged in my head. But once I gave it a chance to live on its own, I loved it. The skepticism bit is a little much at times. Give the guy a break will you? The thing that always annoyed me about 'The X Files' was Scully's constant skepticism. You would think after all the weird things she had been through she would start believing a little bit. What was she, headless? I love Phillip Glass's theme music and the other composers' music. I'm a Phillip Glass fan anyway. I've just started trying to find the soundtrack of the show, but so far haven't had much luck. I hope one of the other TV networks or cable will pick up Night Stalker and continue it with new episodes. After all, All in the Family didn't do well in the ratings at first either and it ended up not only becoming popular, but changed television.
  • If one was to believe this show was to be based on the original "Night Stalker" they would be very surprised. Apparently, the producers of this show have never seen the original, but instead heard all the hype about the X-files being highly influenced by "NS" and then decided to make a cheap knock off of that show. This show had no humor or wit at all. Although it was clear from the pilot that would be the case for the rest of the show, being a fan of horror and sci-fi I was hopeful the series would turn out to be something different - or at least a good way to kill an hour. That wasn't even the case. I watched the first 6 episodes and found the show to be an uninspired cash in on the name alone with no legs to stand on. I felt sorry for all the actors involved because I liked them and thought they deserved better. For people who either don't like this genre, or the overzealous fan who likes everything thrown at them; I say this show might be for you. If you like to expand your horizons in any genre avoid this one.
An error has occured. Please try again.