A Tear in the Sky

The idea behind 'A Tear in the Sky' is a fantastic one: Get a group of scientists, experts and ex-military men to team up and observe a UFO hotspot, using state-of-the-art equipment. The result is ultimately disappointing because the group are given an incredibly short window of time (5 days) to produce their results. Ideally, the team should've been given months, not days to observe the skies and gather evidence. It was great to see the ex-navy guys Kevin Day and Gary Voorhis being given the chance to participate in a project like this. But the quality of the findings was incredibly poor. Grainy or distant footage and small objects that only appeared on screen for a split second. If the public is going to take the UFO/UAP phenomenon seriously, we have to come up with much better evidence than this.

The moment the commander of the spaceship enterprise enters the screen, one should be alerted to the very real possibility that this show is not a documentary but just another idea on how to make cash out of the UFO debate. And as for Caroline Cory, really! I cant imagine a less sincere person to to compare this abomination: does she even know what UFO stands for? Please, could someone make a serious documentary about this subject and stop using it just to make money.

Great movie, highly recommended. Several US Navy guys and a US Air Force guy join forces with a proven Producer (see Her earlier movies, Superhuman, E. T. Contact: They Are Here) to examine advanced aerial technologies.

I think this film is part of the mainstream drip drip disclosure: we don't know whether the users of these technologies (UAPs) might be neutral or good intentioned aliens, or bad aliens. This remains in vagueness, just like in the TV-reports.

The film does not even mention the possibility of unacknowledged, back-engineered secret space programs, which have been mentioned in several recent UFO-movies, although it does show some acknowledged advanced military technologies, as a possible explanation to the seemingly alien phenomena.

Mostly, the movie follows the new, politically correct speech of UAPs instead of UFOs, though the producer uses both expressions. They are not aerial and not phenonema: interdimensional and sentient beings.

I don't understand, why did they not have a look at high definition weather satellite data to check out that warmhole-like tear in the clouds?

Still, I do recommend for everyone to buy and watch this movie.

No way the film was made by the woman as claimed, this is an obvious team of amateur filmmakers and just plopped her name on it. She also seems to be acting, and really comes off as trying to sell me a new kitchen utensil or something. There's no new interesting information here either. 2/10.

A fairly interesting look at some unexplained phenomena but nothing ground-breaking. The over the top presenting by Cory with her coat hanger grin did tend to take away some credibility from the study but it was interesting to listen to the eye witnesses of the events the film was based on.