A Tear in the Sky

There were some fairly interesting things caught by the expedition, and a couple of the people working on the movie are very knowledgeable, but the horrendous, public domain soundtrack and sensationalising vocabulary used by Corey et al ruined what could have been a decent watch. Karaaaaaaaaaazy, increeeeeeeedible, worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld changing, amaaaaaaaazing and woooooooooooow, the discoveries were not. Kind of interesting and worth following up on, they were. The tech nerd who owned most of the kit was great, but do all UFO movie makers go to the same History Channel sponsored film school? No wonder so many serious people still laugh at a very serious subject. Waaaaaaaaaaay overpriced at 4 bucks. The grift continues while we still remain in the dark about what a very real phenomena actually is. Shame.

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.

No way the film was made by the woman as claimed, this is an obvious team of amateur filmmakers and just plopped her name on it. She also seems to be acting, and really comes off as trying to sell me a new kitchen utensil or something. There's no new interesting information here either. 2/10.

A History Channel-type of forced documentary that had too many holes in it to be taken seriously. From the technical aspect of how they were going to collect their " data" to how poorly the sighting were being communicated from the island to the shore house- meaning after the sighting was over!

The crew simply seemed like it was all filmed after the fact. I hate to say it was bad acting, but it felt somewhat embarrassing on quite a few occasions.

As far as the technical problems with the effort, please read the other fine reviews here. Sincerity of intention alone does not make for good research or a good doc.

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.