To be honest, when the movie just started, I did felt like there was an unnecessary drag and see why an impulse to turn it off at the moment where the lady started singing is possible as some of the viewers had felt. However, what was presented later in the film made a strong case. The producer gathers not only witness accounts but expert opinions including Babara Lamb, the UK crop circle expert, Boyd Bushman, former Lockheed Martin engineer, Robert Thurman, Tibetan Buddhism professor at Columbia University and so on (BTW it was actually my first time seeing Dr. Thurman in tapes. While going to Columbia I only exchanged a few emails with him for he was the founder of the Downtown Tibetan Society, and he was absolutely amazing, very patient with me!). It was a feat for the producer to get all those interviews done for it requires not only a desire for knowledge from the interviewer, but also an acceptability to answer on the interviewees’ end provided the controversy of such topics. Though some of the scientific conjectures proposed by the producer sounded a little crude (not necessarily wrong, just that they need more mathematical refinement), it is a way to, as the oriental idiom goes, "solicit the gems from others by tossing out less valuable stones."* This is especially the case with Bushman, who demonstrated such an amazing experiment with the copper tube through which a magnet fell with an astonishingly slow speed. The law gravity is definitely off there!
However, I did felt a little annoyed by the producer interjecting the subjects from time to time, occasionally precisely at the moment when the subject was about to expand his topic and give a more detailed explanation, but dang, the guy’s overwhelming curiosity took the direction of the conversation elsewhere…Errh, frustrating, as there could be a lot of interesting, useful explanation that hasn’t been covered. I think this is a fair statement to make that the producer is a good converser/thinker but not a good journalist. For being a journalist one has to make sure he present the question in an unbiased way so not to solicit certain answers from the subject, and not interject so often with his personal beliefs. The guy exhibited too much outward presumption when asking his questions, which I mean I understand, 'coz if he doesn’t believe in UFO he wouldn’t be making this film. But for a good film, certain rules have to be obeyed: he had to quench that desire to not offend the viewers. Because remember, not all viewers coming across this film are pro-UFO; they might be little read in this area and wanting to know more thru this film. Certain information if not presented in an appropriate way, can easily turn those viewers into opponents of UFO, and the producers wouldn’t want that.
I was introduced to this film after reading Robert Shapiro’s Ultimate UFO Series: Amdromeda. This book made me cry in several occasions. What the extraterrestrials did in Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, and Alaska that prevented 1/3 of Canada and America Pacific Northwest from becoming uninhabitable, was too powerful for me, both physically and emotionally.
To be honest, I’m glad that humans haven’t mastered space travel. Boriska Kipriyanovich, the Russian boy from Mars once said that from the way humans treat animals, it would be a disaster for us to go to space, because if we do find those less intelligent than ourselves, we’re very likely to treat them as animals.
And this coincides with what Leia said in the book:
“You have to perfect that (referring to the gift talking to each other on earth) before you can seriously consider being a candidate to meet cultures from other planets. Why would any culture want to come to Earth if you reject some of your own?” So I disagree with the filmmaker that extraterrestrials pose a threat to human in the way that they seek to take over the Earth by luring us to fuck it up ourselves first. Humanity’s biggest enemy is ourselves. We are the threat to Earth. It’s like when a lady filed divorce with her physically abusive husband, after which she found her true-lover who takes care of her, tends to her needs and is appreciate of her beauty, what right does the ex-husband have to complain about it, or to deter her from finding her true happiness? If we keep abusing the earth, what makes you think that she doesn’t have the right to break up with us and move on?
(Shame on Amazon who banned this review from being posted after I purchased the movie)