Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs

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.

I got to view this movie at Spudfest in Idaho Falls, Idaho and I was blown away and it was absolutely amazing. Dan Aykroyd and David Sereda deliver this dismissed topic masterfully. Most people are pretty crazy when it comes to persuading about UFO's but Dan Aykroyd is completely different. Dan Aykroyd has been a UFO Believer for a long time and knows what he's talking about. There is also some really good UFO footage in this film that adds to the believability. Before I saw this film I was unsure, but now i'm a believer. This film will open your eyes to the truth . It will be up to you to believe it or not. All in all this film was great and I can't wait to get the DVD.

I particularly liked Sereda's work on the NASA UFO phenomena and this was really my main reason for obtaining it. I think having Dan Ackroyd in it is good for publicity and will pull in a few more waverers whereas the more ardent information seeker will take pretty much anything novel in the field when it comes out.

I don't know much about what Dan has been up to acting wise since Ghostbusters - but obviously a lot of what he has been doing revolves round detailed research UFOs and anti-gravity technologies as he is surprisingly well up on all the current evidence and philosophy in the field. A bit I found interesting was when Dan was on the phone to Britney Spears and some kind of M.I.B. agency materialized.

Although it's a pretty steady and uneventful interview style, the dialogs between the two and the occasional clip thrown in make the video more than watchable and unlike the vast majority of TV junk UFO/Alien genre programs we're fed - 'Unplugged...' really delivers an informative summary of just what could be going on and more importantly how we should begin DEALING with the situation.

In the 21st century we cannot go on treating this field as a side show or joke - whether out of fear or ridicule we need to grow up as a species, eradicate secrecy and expose the massive black budget spends. This DVD is well worth the time and expense whether you are new to the subject or a seasoned guru of all things alien.

More on the UFO phenomena and how it relates to Omega-Point issues at http://www.utopiated.net

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.

The "documentary" starts out hopeful with a more or less an objective view at UFO sightings and events around them, but as the movie progresses it becomes more and more of a pseudo-scientific documentary. The interviewer starts asking Dan all kinds of speculative questions like "what would you do if you could move back in time?". This may be acceptable for the discovery channel, but in a movie that wants to be taken seriously (and it seems it does) this completely undermines all credibility. The last line of the "interview" (i had the feeling the questions and answers were recorded separately) is something along the lines of "Thank you for this interview Dan, I really think you're one of the greatest minds of our time". How can you say that to an actor/performer, because that's how Dan describes himself in the movie as well, who has no scientific basis for his speculative stories? I found it a very disappointing documentary with way too many repeats of the same footage an way too much speculation for it to be taken seriously.