soulexpress 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.

preppy-3 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.

liquidcelluloid-1 Network: ABC; Genre: Remake, Horror; Content Rating: TV-14 (horror violence, blood and gore); Available: DVD; Perspective: Contemporary (star range: 1 - 4); Season Reviewed: Series (1 season) I've got to admit right off the bat that I'm not familiar with the original Jeff Rice series "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" starring Darren McGavin. I can't compare the two. I don't know how derivative this remake is or how blasphemous it may be, but it isn't hard to imagine. For those not familiar with the story, it follow Carl Kolchak, a newspaper crime reporter who obsessively hunts down all things supernatural after the brutal murder of his wife by a beast that left a mysterious mark on her (and other victims) after she died."Night Stalker" is a disaster from head to toe. Starting withe casting of Kolchak. As a man who should be obsessed, in turmoil, maybe a little unhinged, Stewart Townsend plays Kolchak blank-faced, without any passion, emotion or depth. Instead of a hardboiled crime reporter he looks like a soft WB TV star sleepwalking through a slasher movie.While I may not know "The Night Stalker", I do know "The X-Files" where "Stalker" developer Frank Spotnitz hails from. And while the original "Stalker" may have been an inspiration for Chris Carter's supernatural thriller, for Spotnitz to dig up the ghosts of the past reeks of a creatively bankrupt effort to recapture the magic of both shows. Kolchak is the open-minded one, quick to believe the average crime is motivated by a something otherworldly. The Fox Mulder. His crime-beat partner Harry (gorgeous Gabrielle Union) is the reluctant one who butts up against Kolchak with a belief in science and facts. The Dana Scully. They are helped in there endeavors by young intern photographer Jain (Eric Jungmann). The Jimmy Olsen. Guess what else? The two leads have a purely professional relationship with only the tiniest hint of sexual tension.There is a slight hypnotic quality to "Stalker". The final (unaired) episode, "What's My Answer Mr. Kolchak" is the best of the series because it tapes into a surreal idea that the rest of this procedural show should have had. It keeps you guessing in a way the others don't. But for the most part "Stalker" is aggravatingly straight forward. Many of the stories feel lifted heavily from other Sci-Fi/Horror shows and the show really suffers from brutally stupid written dialog. The opening and closing narrations make pretty much no sense.Is it scary? Even creepy? Well that standard is just another tool the show used to dig the show deeper. Spotnitz's lame attempt to build suspense cure-all is to show ominous walking feet into frame. Who is it? We don't know yet. He does this over and over. Feet. The violence and use of (quote/unquote) creature effects is chopped to hell in the editing - an obvious attempt to hide a low budget rather than to meet the network standards."Night Stalker" is one of several network potholes on the long, boring road between the time when the masterful "The X-Files" held nerds in suspense over alien conspiracies and now, when the unbridled funhouse ride "Supernatural" has brought the TV horror genre back from the dead. A perfect cure for insomnia.* / 4

rockchick9 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.