When I saw the UFO in the film it immediately reminded me of an odd encounter I had around that time, and Mark Washburn's review on IMDb describes a similar incident around the same time but I was in England. I was walking home from work crossing an unlit field and looked up to admire the stars on a very clear night when immediately above me flew a very large object which, from the way it blocked the stars was clearly triangular, with three white lights. It was moving very slowly, and what amazed me as I watched it was 1, there was no sound whatsoever and 2, it turned and changed direction without any degree of banking as if on a swivel, and then glided silently away. I wondered if it was a Stealth plane but couldn't explain the lack of any engine noise. With regard to the movie, I enjoyed it, although, as other have pointed out, I did question why someone would have kept his helmet on for so long with the camera, and why not look at the creatures for longer? But my strongest impression was that I just wanted Mitch to die; he has to be the dumbest post-adolescent I have ever seen. So annoying! But then if that was how I was meant to feel then, good acting.

The film started out well, and built suspense fairly decently. The integration of actual footage was really well done. When the air battle began, I thought it looked pretty good. And the crash was very cool. Alas, the protagonist quartet of unlikable twenty- and thirty-something 'adolescents' were so two-dimensional (as was the suicidal hermit Gayson), I felt like "are these the only archetypes we can come up with? They are always such douchebags!" And as soon as the jar head Marine (the MOST unlikable of the bunch) takes off to 'rescue the downed pilot' (perhaps?), the descent into bad horror film ripoffs began, and I was looking forward for the jarhead to be anally probed (if ONLY the aliens would have done that sort of thing...). And please, ET's that walk on 4 legs (and who pilot sophisticated anti-gravity machines in the nude) are NEVER going to be believable!!! Next, STOP IT with the monster aliens - they are more ridiculous than frightening - PLUS, the ending was less than satisfying, which is why I scored it less than 50%,The film had potential, and from the IMDb reviews, I thought, "Heck, it's only $4 on Amazon, so I'll give it a chance (Amazon rated it 3 of 5 stars, IMDb Said 5.6 (of ten). From now on, if a film has this score, I Am gonna KICK myself.

LOVED this film! It kept me engaged throughout. Some really beautiful shots as well. The characters were really well developed, and it made me feel so bad for the families. Really well done, I would def rec!!! The mix of found-footage with traditional narrative made this seem like a film that cost 5mm, not 1mm. The performances were incredible as well. I am still not sure if the film is based off of real events, or if the guys were made up......its THAT convincing! The pacing was incredible, the direction was incredible, and the story really had me connected to the characters. Does anyone know about the director? This was really, really fun and I would love to see more.

The found footage trope is an overused plot device. I'm biased against shaky camera nonsense, simply because it can (and would be) digitally repaired. Anyone can create a fixed-point to line up the camera motion frame-by-frame using a home computer; There's an example of this somewhere on Youtube using the movie 'Cloverfield'.I loved the creature effects in this film. George Loucas did a fantastic job. I wish he would replace whoever does the crappy CGI for SYFY originals. The aliens looked great. The overhead dog-fight with the UFO was great. Even the silly way the UFO crashed worked for me because (at least) it looked something actually hit ground. I enjoyed the visuals so much that I wish it were most of the movie.The actors were great and very believable at the start. I thought this was a real home video edited into the movie. But towards the alien contact it became apparent that they weren't receiving direction. They were improvising their reactions and lines during the chase scene & before the abduction. It went from believable to totally fake with one sundown.One con of this film is the use of real footage to create a documentary appearance. It was way too random and unsorted. It needed smother editing - for instance; we're watching the action unfold, it cuts away to a news reel, then back to the action and again to a news reel. A 101 course in how to make a documentary would have worked here.The news and interview were just to fill time, because there was only enough "found footage" for a short film. Time fillers are easy though; Doesn't this director know you can stretch moments with a black screen, heavy breathing and a little suspense? The "less is more" type of film-making that was used in (say) 'Jaws' that Spielberg created whenever the shark was broken. It's a 6 out of 10 for me. I'd still recommend it for the FX and some of the acting. The plot itself was based on the real life "Phoenix Lights" event, but there's no real dialogue here, zero direction and basically it plays out like those scenes in a video game you want to skip through. Even on a cheap budget this could have been a great collector for the UFO enthusiasts. This is purely directorial failure.