A Tear in the Sky

I don't want to rain on the filmmakers parade, as this is obviously a passion project, bt this could have been so much better & will leave many people cold.

A personal hate of mine was the somewhat nasuiting green screen backgrounds, they are very decent these days, but they're very over the top & overused here. Real locations are always a better idea & if you can't do that, have some visual flow between interviewees, here though, there were just too many different, jarring backdrops used. Another production note, the editing was at somewhat of a junior level & a few times quite clumsy, this will always make your film look cheap.

Shatner, Kaku & a few other high profilers have kindly lent their weight to lift A Tear In The Sky's profile, but to no great success. Shatner & Kaku sitting in front of more eye popping green screens & looking like they've just woken up from their afternoon naps do nothing to further whatever point is trying to be made & in the end it's all been said before.

We then meet our gallant group of investigative lads, who armed with the latest tech, try to capture what has already been captured, but just capturing it again with their own gear. This is the entire premise of the show, and it's up to you to decide whether it was a success or failure.

Then we have Caroline Cory, the chipper leader of our merry band of Ufologists & the one driving the cash grab truck, for, however genuine everyone's interest is here, the premise for this show is so fundamentally weak from the start, that anyone still awake by the end will be left wondering, what was the point of any of it?!?

Honestly, it's not terrible, but with all it's lofty intentions, it's nothing we all haven't seen before & done better.

Worthless "treasure hunt" show like all those awful TV shows on the History Channel and Discover.

A bunch of scientists set up equipment on rooftops in Laguna Beach and Catalina and show us dots of light they film and track but they never tells what they are ... only what they think they might perhaps be.

William Shatner appears for no reason as he has nothing to do with the "scientific search." Nor does the annoying hostess.

Lots of graphs and charts and instruments ... but no substance. Why this was released as a "documentary" is anyone's guess.

Great movie, highly recommended. Several US Navy guys and a US Air Force guy join forces with a proven Producer (see Her earlier movies, Superhuman, E. T. Contact: They Are Here) to examine advanced aerial technologies.

I think this film is part of the mainstream drip drip disclosure: we don't know whether the users of these technologies (UAPs) might be neutral or good intentioned aliens, or bad aliens. This remains in vagueness, just like in the TV-reports.

The film does not even mention the possibility of unacknowledged, back-engineered secret space programs, which have been mentioned in several recent UFO-movies, although it does show some acknowledged advanced military technologies, as a possible explanation to the seemingly alien phenomena.

Mostly, the movie follows the new, politically correct speech of UAPs instead of UFOs, though the producer uses both expressions. They are not aerial and not phenonema: interdimensional and sentient beings.

I don't understand, why did they not have a look at high definition weather satellite data to check out that warmhole-like tear in the clouds?

Still, I do recommend for everyone to buy and watch this movie.

The idea behind 'A Tear in the Sky' is a fantastic one: Get a group of scientists, experts and ex-military men to team up and observe a UFO hotspot, using state-of-the-art equipment. The result is ultimately disappointing because the group are given an incredibly short window of time (5 days) to produce their results. Ideally, the team should've been given months, not days to observe the skies and gather evidence. It was great to see the ex-navy guys Kevin Day and Gary Voorhis being given the chance to participate in a project like this. But the quality of the findings was incredibly poor. Grainy or distant footage and small objects that only appeared on screen for a split second. If the public is going to take the UFO/UAP phenomenon seriously, we have to come up with much better evidence than this.

A fairly interesting look at some unexplained phenomena but nothing ground-breaking. The over the top presenting by Cory with her coat hanger grin did tend to take away some credibility from the study but it was interesting to listen to the eye witnesses of the events the film was based on.