Holes in the Sky: The Sean Miller Story

The biggest fault of this movie is that it focuses way too much on the filmmakers, which really skews the focus of this movie. The part where they talk about sad songs is super cringe, and it feels like a vanity project. They don't even describe what the original Sean Miller story was until like a third of the way in. It feels like a student film, not in a good way. The audio is not good. I feel like we saw way too much of the filmmakers for this to be a believable found footage "documentary" film. The video quality is also pretty poor. The acting is poor. The most common voice and face is Ash, who's supposed to be a professional filmmaker/documentarian, which goes against how you make a documentary. This definitely feels like the filmmakers had friends left positive reviews, so the IMBD score is egregiously skewed.

To make movie, and to do it basicly from home, a 101 encyclopedia how to make a fictious documentary about a F. L. crime dissapearance, involving loads of hi tech stuff and trying to make an ''invaders from space'' abduction into something cool and nervewrecking...

well dissapointed i was, not by the efforts and esteem, more the fact that the story is very generic...based on all the true life incidents that runs the gossip over there usa... that leads to a heartstuck lack of realism, and i do feel that i am one of the best moduscandidates to test such a film on, mostly due to im a grumpy old man, i am considering me as an eminent observer and viably sceptic and fully litterate norwegian that thinks far beyond the countyborder...

yes its a film for the digital generation, baiting every conspirative thout on social media, and for the rednecked illiterat... a 2 star recommendation is generously given to ''holes in the plot''

It was the dumbest movie I seen so far . So bad that within ten minutes of the movies . I got to do the kitchen, feed the chickens, went horse back riding . Check my fence line came back to see a kitchen pan thrown across the kitchen. You know how many pans been thrown at me for coming late . . I started watching UFO's on the mountains of Mexico. Pop a Corona Extra , kept me in my toes pop tops the whole night . Like dark of if moon. The Alien space station in the moon . Million times better . This should of been a comedy movie there some real funny stuff. Like when the guy started spitting chocolate through his mouth after the neighbor get caught steering. Man it turn into a love scene they go at each other given chocolate mouth to mouth .

This mockumentary has a budget of a few thousand dollars and it looks like it. It's about the same as what you could do at home with your phone. After the first 15 minutes I had to recheck the IMDb rating which is above a 6 amazingly. I figured it must get better or something for the ratings to be that high. So I watched another 15 minutes before checking all the reviews and I see that mostly there are 1s and 2s and then incredibly a bunch of 9s and 10s. I kind of checked out when the crew had a long conversation in the car about sad love songs or something. I finally gave up when they spent several minutes spooking themselves out about "unexplained phenomena" which was a light turning on or off.

HOLES IN THE SKY: THE SEAN MILLER STORY is a mockumentary (fake documentary) which purports to tell the story of someone who has had highly unusual experiences which are traced back to possible encounters with extraterrestrial beings.

In order to increase the feeling of authenticity, the credited film crew members play semi-fictional versions of themselves, and one suspects that even the name of the actor who plays the eponymous character, credited as "Sean Ed", might just be his first and middle name.

An issue that becomes apparent right away is that, contrary to what the title indicates, the story is not (just) about Sean Miller but even more so about the documentary film crew that goes to his house to interview him and film the strange happenings there. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that approach, but given the title, it amounts to a bit of bait and switch.

Apart from the ambivalent focus of the story, what is presented here is not any different than what has been presented in numerous alien encounter/abduction movies before.

From the perspective of someone who really believes in these kinds of encounters, it could be argued that this is the very point, that people should be exposed to the "usual" or expected manifestations of possible aliens encounters to recognize them for what they "really are", in the same way that we do not want novelty and variation of content in any given set of public service messages, since that would only undermine them by causing confusion.

But the problem with that argument is that whereas public service messages of the usual kind (e.g. About buckling up, avoidance of drunk driving, vaccination etc.) have essentially conclusive evidence behind them that is denied only by hardcore conspiracy theorists, the evidence for alien counters still falls sufficiently short that it has so far only convinced hardcore conspiracy theorists. In short, the evidentiary status of this subject is exactly the opposite of what it needs to be in order for this argument to work.

Apart from that, one can imagine that even within the confines of an entirely standard presentation of alien encounters, it is possible to weave compelling and innovative human interest stories. The closest the film comes to that is with the story of Brett, who is already facing severe life challenges when he takes on the assignment, but somehow his story failed to touch me.

Although toward the end, we are treated to a few special effects, the overall low production values did not do the movie a service.

I think this is a film that only fans of the subgenre of alien encounter found footage movies will enjoy.