CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.0/10
5.3 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Chris Norton refuta el fenómeno de la abducción alienígena. Sin embargo, Emily insiste en que los extraterrestres la secuestran cada siete años en su cumpleaños.Chris Norton refuta el fenómeno de la abducción alienígena. Sin embargo, Emily insiste en que los extraterrestres la secuestran cada siete años en su cumpleaños.Chris Norton refuta el fenómeno de la abducción alienígena. Sin embargo, Emily insiste en que los extraterrestres la secuestran cada siete años en su cumpleaños.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado en total
Katherine Taylor
- Agnes
- (as a different name)
Opiniones destacadas
This movie doesn't have a lot, but there are a lot worst out there, so give it a go. It's not terrible by any means, and the actors did a good job. It starts to seem a little long, then there is a stupid twist towards the end that just shouldn't be there. The "drug" scene is what I'm referring too. The movie probably would have been better without that scene. It improved the movie zero and created a plot hole.
When Chris Norton (Ryan Carnes) was a boy, he witnessed an argument of his parents. His mother leaves the house, there is a power surge and she vanishes. His father Peter Norton (Peter Stormare) claims that she has been abducted by aliens. On the present days, Chris is a filmmaker that wants to expose the hoax about alien abduction that destroyed his family. He travels with his crew to New Mexico to interview people that claim that had been abducted by alien that participate in an alien exposition promoted by Bill Johnson (Don Stark). Chris and his camera Brent (Claude Duhamel) meet Emily Reed (Jordan Hinson), who claims that was abducted when she was seven and fourteen years old. She will be twenty-one on three days and Chris decides to stay with her. They fall in love with each other while strange things happen to Chris and Brent. What is the truth about alien abduction?
"Beyond the Sky" is an entertaining sci-fi-mystery film about alien abduction. The screenplay is well-written and the film is developed in adequate pace. Unfortunately the camera work is very poor and the hair of Jordan Hinson is awful. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
"Beyond the Sky" is an entertaining sci-fi-mystery film about alien abduction. The screenplay is well-written and the film is developed in adequate pace. Unfortunately the camera work is very poor and the hair of Jordan Hinson is awful. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
I liked it a lot. It is very unpredictable and that is why it is so interesting.
Overall, I'd say Beyond the Sky is a pretty good alien abduction film. But a few blunders here and there stop it from getting a better score.
The movie makes use of some "cam shots", as it's basically following a video "journalist" (more of a blogger as he has no professionalism) who wants to disprove alien abductions. Fortunately it doesn't suffer from the usual shaky cam, blurry nonsense the "found footage" movies do. The camera shots are used in places and mostly done quite well. Most of the film is standard movie angles and all with just bits of cam footage tossed in at decent moments. Such restraint is definitely appreciated.
On the flip side, the so called journalist really doesn't deserve the title. He basically aggressively accuses alien abductees of lying, constantly getting in their face about things. While it's fine to not be a believer, to basically tell people that they're lying to cover up other traumatic experiences and badgering them about is downright stupid, and usually would result in a punch to the face. As a journalist, or even just a human being, the way the main character treats others is downright shameful.
The special effects are decently done (though most of that budget goes into the last few minutes of the movie). No cheesy special effects that you'd see in a SyFy flick. They have a budget and work well within it to make the most of the presentation.
One of the biggest flaws for me though, is that the movie basically does one of the stupidest things any show or movie could do. It shows you parts of the ending, and then jumps back to X days earlier. NEVER do that. EVER! You're basically spoiling your movie right from the start, which for a lot of people is enough to just give up on it right there. When you know the outcome, then all the rest of the movie becomes mostly meaningless. Everything that could have been an interesting reveal basically becomes an expected outcome.
If not for the horrible idea to put key parts of the end right at the start, this movie would have probably scored an 8 out of 10. It's really a wonderful low budget alien abduction film with a lot going for it.
The movie makes use of some "cam shots", as it's basically following a video "journalist" (more of a blogger as he has no professionalism) who wants to disprove alien abductions. Fortunately it doesn't suffer from the usual shaky cam, blurry nonsense the "found footage" movies do. The camera shots are used in places and mostly done quite well. Most of the film is standard movie angles and all with just bits of cam footage tossed in at decent moments. Such restraint is definitely appreciated.
On the flip side, the so called journalist really doesn't deserve the title. He basically aggressively accuses alien abductees of lying, constantly getting in their face about things. While it's fine to not be a believer, to basically tell people that they're lying to cover up other traumatic experiences and badgering them about is downright stupid, and usually would result in a punch to the face. As a journalist, or even just a human being, the way the main character treats others is downright shameful.
The special effects are decently done (though most of that budget goes into the last few minutes of the movie). No cheesy special effects that you'd see in a SyFy flick. They have a budget and work well within it to make the most of the presentation.
One of the biggest flaws for me though, is that the movie basically does one of the stupidest things any show or movie could do. It shows you parts of the ending, and then jumps back to X days earlier. NEVER do that. EVER! You're basically spoiling your movie right from the start, which for a lot of people is enough to just give up on it right there. When you know the outcome, then all the rest of the movie becomes mostly meaningless. Everything that could have been an interesting reveal basically becomes an expected outcome.
If not for the horrible idea to put key parts of the end right at the start, this movie would have probably scored an 8 out of 10. It's really a wonderful low budget alien abduction film with a lot going for it.
Small budget on this one, and it shows. You would wish it was only that. But the script is very, very poor. It's not absolutely incoherent, but you feel the writers tried to put more into it than there were means to get it done. The acting is not so bad. But you time and time again, during the duration, feel that this or that is ridiculous, and you never fully get caught up in the plot.
Of all the (countless) movies on the topic, you have very ample choice to find another much better.
Of all the (countless) movies on the topic, you have very ample choice to find another much better.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaTravis Walton, the most famous alien abductee has a cameo as himself during the end credit.
- ErroresWhile at the Indian village before the ritual the elder Indian put black ash under Emily's eyes the next scene it isn't there and the next scene it is back again.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Beyond the Sky?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 1,500,000 (estimado)
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 19,761
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 22min(82 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2:1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta