To get things straight from the outset, "Hangar 10" (aka "The Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident") is NOT a cheap and useless Turkey, filled with daft dialogue and illogical sequences of events, notwithstanding its presence among the cheaper supermarket movies on DVD.Rather, this is a film that takes itself pretty seriously and tries hard - a fact that is made all the clearer by bonus materials featuring British director-writer Daniel Simpson. The piece took two years to make in the course of 7 visits to the real locations in Suffolk (Forest and disused MoD/USAF bases likewise). Interestingly, efforts to make all seem gloomy and inhospitable were apparently thwarted somewhat by the film crew's rather regular encounters with bright, sunny weather! But those who doubt (as I did) that rural East Anglia can really play host to the kind of deserted desolation shown in the film may take heart from the real-life fact that Rendlesham Forest covers 1500 ha - that's quite a large area (certainly by British standards), and easily enough space to get lost in. While Rendlesham village has some 3000 people, the area south of it that includes the Forest and base is on a kind of peninsula between river estuaries with just a few (mostly tiny) villages, plus a lot of forest and heath.To get something else straight, the "Incident" here is not the world-famous December 1980 one (which may or may not have been anything unusual), but "a fictional" one involving 3 young adults out (semi-legally) with metal detectors in 2013. "Fictional" it may be, but also very similar to the "real" 1980 descriptions from US military personnel, in that lights and noises and assumed alien presences are involved.It's then a reasonable enough topic for a sci-fi film, and it's also a reasonable enough candidate for the kind of "hand-held/found footage" work we (and our balance systems and stomachs) have tried to get accustomed to thanks to offerings like "Cloverfield". Indeed, like the latter film (and indeed the trendsetting "Blair Witch Project"), "Hangar 10" has as its raison d'etre a faith that audiences will like to experience, to fear, and to fail to fully understand, events of a magnitude and nature well beyond human ken.Though rather little actually happens here, and though we have seen far worse things in many other films, this work DOES achieve its goal of disorientation, and a surprisingly high level of scariness for that reason. It also pursues a plot line that becomes clear enough as the film proceeds (clearer still if the alternative ending is consulted). If that story looks implausible or ludicrous (as well it might, obviously) that is more a reflection of a refusal to accept sci fi premises on the part of the viewer than it is any real failing on the makers' part.That leaves the one remaining question of whether one (and more specifically a sci-fi-appreciating one) would actually want to bother.I did, and on the whole I don't regret it. This film has more integrity and cohesion than a great many other filmed pieces of science fiction, including many that had hugely greater budgets at their disposal.

Ignore the hate. People are just idiots and expect the wrong things.The low scores must have come from low brows all wanting massive FX budgets and big casts and big sets. This is a low budget story.HANGAR 10 is a 'found footage' movie, yet another one. But it doesn't suck for several reasons:The cast are good.The tension builds and builds.There are some jump scares and genuinely unsettling moments.The camera footage isn't just random "OOh! Something is happening so we must point out the ground!" rubbish. It actually manages to stay on-point.The later scenes get weirder and weirder.The ending is just explosive.Criticisms?* Some of the CG is a bit weak in the body of the film, but it gets better as the film goes, and the stuff at the climax is astounding.* The film goes a bit slow towards the end, and they start repeating themselves a bit, but it doesn't last long and suddenly the end-game story is upon you. It's not a boring film. Unless you are a moron with the attention span of a sparrow.Normally I'm not a huge fan of these films, but they've been creeping up and up on me as I find better and better ones. This is a good one.Haters gonna be morons, y'know? - -- ---

Prepare yourself for about an hour and a half of awful camera-work that is all over the place and just downright annoying. And prepare yourself for an hour and a half of virtually nothing happening aside from three people pretending to be lost in the Woods and then finding an old abandoned hangar.There are no words that will do justice to the extent of which I loathe this genre of movies; the mockumentary and found footage genre. If you have seen one of them then you have essentially seen all.I will say that the lights in the sky, as shown in "Hangar 10", was quite good and interesting, and that was actually the best part of the entire movie.With just three people on the cast list, there was a tremendous performance pressure resting on their shoulders. I will say that the actors and actress did manage to do good enough jobs with the limitations of their limited script.Once the movie actually manages to shamble to an ending, you just sit there left behind with a foul taste in your mouth, robbed of 83 minutes of living and you just go mmm-hmmmm."Hangar 10" is not worth wasting your time or money on. I did it so you don't have to. If you enjoy Sci-Fi or UFO/extraterrestrial lore, stay well clear of this movie.

these are one of the most stunning real videos about ET's put together which produced an eye-popping documented movie on UFOs and their cover-ups by the government.if you already knew about hangar 18, wait until you see this.the documented movie is supposedly filmed in England.it is as thrilling as it can be once it gets a grip on You.the earlier part of the movie is a bit slow but the plot is really good.A must watch for all ET followers and believers.| #NJ |