Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs

This movie start off reasonably good, trying to portray in a good and objective way that UFOs exist.

It start showing an Indian looking kinda of guy, interviewing Dan Akroyd, like they both had a PhD on the subject, as the movie progress, it becomes increasingly boring, repetitive, and even silly, the interviewer start asking all those sort of personal questions, 'would you go to space an not tell anything if it was required?', 'what would you do if you could do time travel and who would you wanna sit down and talk to', when they were not talking about those trivialities, the Indian looking guy was throwing those incredibly stupid theories that makes the average citizen roll eyes before those UFOlogists, and Dan Akroyd, spend a good 60% of the movies just nodding, 'Do you think they are this?', Dan nods, 'Do you think they are that?', Dan nods again, he does that for nearly an hour and half.

I can't really recommend this movie to anyone, It was very badly made, the filming was also annoying, as both man, The Indian and Dan Akroyd, spend the whole movie looking directly to the camera, and basically, the same logical and the weird theories that were discussed and the footage that is shown during the initial fifteen minutes, are repeated countless times during the interview, making a boring 100 minutes movie, look like a 300 minutes one.

I don't recommend watching this movie, It is a waste of time, It has a small amount of good footage and an even smaller amount of information, but that's it, Dan Akroyd looks specially ridiculous trying to appear as an Einstein and the Indian guy at times looks more interesting in Dan than in the UFO subject.

Rating: 3/10.

I was excited to finally see Dan Aykroyd talk about UFOs, his opinions, etc. I've been a fan of his with his outspokenness about UFOs. This movie had a lot of elements that were interesting and the videos and archive footage were great for showing some type of evidence. However, the way the movie was setup with the interviewer and Dan Akyroyd just didn't work. They had a lot of data for this movie but the way it was displayed was a big old mess. They kept showing the same videos throughout the movie. I wish they would have elaborated more on Dan Aykroyd's view of the credibility of some of the videos/pictures they had shown (exp. Billy Meier).

I think it had the potential to be one of the better documentaries about UFOs; unfortunately, it was poorly made and constructed. The camera angles between the interviewer and Dan Aykroyd were awkward and if anything, for a skeptic to watch, that dynamic in itself I felt lacked credibility to their overall opinions. It is worth seeing, but I wish it was made better. Dan..if you want to make another UFO documentary, look me up, I can do better ;)

I've seen dozens of UFO documentaries and this one is decidedly middle of the pack. Set up as an interview with Dan Aykroyd about UFO's this is often wanders off from Dan to other people such as Gordon Cooper who also tell their stories about UFO's.The spoken material presented is for the most part pretty good and interesting, and had this been an audio presentation this would have rated higher, however the visuals and how they are arranged are something else entirely. First off Aykroyd looks uncomfortable, on some level it seems as though he doesn't want to be there and the result is its not fun to watch. Secondly the filmmakers use the same footage over and over and over again under the comments made by the various talking heads. By the time ten minutes have passed we've seen several shots five or six times, give me the person speaking not the same Mexican sightings. Worst of all the film the film repeatedly uses some of the footage of Billy Meier's UFO sightings. It is spectacular stuff but since most people seem to feel that Meier was hoaxing all his pictures and videos its inclusion makes it hard to take the rest of the material seriously. Visuals aside there are some nifty tales told and if you can listen to this video rather than watch it its a rather intriguing way to play a mind stretching what if game.

Now, I would never dis Dan Akroyd, the man is a comedic genius. But, whoever made this movie is dumb as a rock. David Serada comes across as a total moron and asks Akroyd totally inept questions. Seriously, if you had a sit down interview, would you ask Dan Akroyd who he would meet if he traveled back in time? The production value is rock bottom with CGI that looks straight outta 1996. Serada's narrations is boring and his monotone drawl gets old REAL quick. Akroyd comes across as being very smart (as he obviously is, this must have been a slight lapse in clarity) and a perfect gentlemen. The makers of the film, however come across as complete morons. If you completely and totally believe aliens are already here, good for you. As a filmmaker, you should try to get people to believe by preparing a well put together film, which this most definitely isn't. But, if Serada and co., were smart, rational people, they wouldn't have made such a terrible film.

David Serada, a UFO enthusiast who co-produced this film, interviews the comedian Dan Aykroyd who claims he has had experiences with alien beings. Aykroyd expounds on UFO lore and his own beliefs on matters related to extraterrestrials. Footage of this interview is interspersed with video and film of these flying objects; video clips of a former Canadian defense minister speaking on the subject; audio clips of astronauts speaking of strange things in space; and so forth.

Documentaries dealing with the supernatural and other unprovable theories (usually involving government conspiracies) are endlessly fascinating to me. They invariably come with eerie electronic music, blurry photographs and earnest talking heads. No matter how bad they are, they never fail to give me a spooky thrill, which make them the most surefire horror movies I can rent.

They are also fascinating glimpses into human nature. People who believe in the existence of flying saucers, ghosts, Big Foot, The Loch Ness monster, ESP; in the value of astrology, miracle healing, Nostradamus' predictions; in government conspiracies involving JFK's assassination, the World Trade Center's destruction, the war in Iraq; in various establishments covering up evidence of the true authorship of Shakespeare's plays, of the efficacy of alternative medicine, of the proof that Atlantis once existed—in short, any idea that may be given the unkind label of "crackpot"—are blind to basic principles of logic. For instance, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Believers hear this all the time, but they either deny the principle, or insist that the principle works in their favor. Aykroyd and other believers tell us the debate over the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrials is over: it's time to debate what we are to do about this potential threat.

What about the people who create hoaxes? Some enjoy fooling people; some do it for fame and profit; others are believers who want to prove something they know in their hearts to be true. Billy Meier's 1970s footage of various UFOs supposedly has been debunked even by other UFOlogists. Yet here's the footage again in a 2005 documentary; and it's presented uncritically as proof. No hoaxer ever seems to merit unanimous disapproval, no matter how thoroughly debunked. James Randi can expose the 1970s spoon-bender Uri Geller all he wants: Geller still has a career as a "paranormalist." Randi can expose the 16th century prophet Nostradamus all he wants. That cult won't die either.

Some skeptics make the mistake of being condescending or nasty to true believers. The temptation is understandable. Those who prey on the gullible are despicable. Those who allow themselves to be fooled repeatedly are pathetic. And you can see on the message board for this title how nasty the believers can get in return. But how many of us are guiltless of irrational beliefs? How many skeptics are totally free of a belief in the supernatural? What does it mean that human beings insist on spirituality: on believing in some power that is not open to scientific proof? What does it mean that so many of us pretend that spiritual matters *are* open to scientific proof?

Dan Aykroyd's beliefs are extremely foolish, but he is clearly intelligent and seems to have a good sense of humor. (You might expect the latter of a comedian, but they tend to be over-sensitive and humorless.) The badness of this documentary nearly sinks him; but he stays afloat, even when telling us that he saw those common figures of UFOlogy, the Men in Black, while on the phone with Britney Spears. He probably regretted the interview after two minutes; or at least when Serada asks him about time travel; certainly when Serada closes the interview by saying, "God, God, I thank you, Dan, so much for this interview. … I really believe you are one of the greatest minds in our world at this time." Happily for him, he is shown reacting with a sheepish grin. Serada easily could have inserted one of Aykroyd's deadpan looks.