Holes in the Sky: The Sean Miller Story

I actually paid to watch this movie. What a BIG mistake! Nothing really happened until the last 10-15 minutes of this movie, and then what happened wasn't scary at all because it was filmed SO poorly. Shaky camera without a full view of the action. I had to watch the ending 2 times for it to make any sense. Bland, uninteresting characters whose actions often made no sense. The movie could have done without the characters of the sister and her awful husband. Did not care that the movie ended with the disappearance of 2 of the characters. Was looking forward to watching this movie. Should have spent my money on another movie. Skip This Movie!!

This is one of those disposable films I put on just so I have something to watch, and not expect too much. Of course I'm always open to an unexpected gem, but this was not one of those.

It is just your basic generic disposable 'at least its not unwatchable'. Not really engaging, and some fairly problematic premises. I was hoping for more, I give it 5 stars because anything lower is reserved for films that make me mad for being so bad, waste of time, or films that prioritize commentary over artistry.

Better than a student film project, but nothing inspiring at all. There wasn't any point in the film, turn of events, or surprise or sequence that had any impact at all. Not necessarily a train wreck, but more of a quarterback fumble on the 50 yard line.

The worst most annoying part is some of the footage is supposedly shot by the film maker on his cell phone, and guess what? The filmaker is shooting cell video in portrait mode. I mean...

... Obviously inflated the user reviews.

Some films use found footage and documentary style shots as an artistic choice. From the very first frame, it's plain to see this was not made out of artistic choice but budget necessity.

Meandering, boring, full of clear self insert characters, wouldn't fool even the daftest human alive for a millisecond that it's real... Genuinely more of an endurance test than a movie.

Tries to keep building and building this sense of mystery and curiosity, but basically just stretches out it's very basic story of maybe, two or three sentences and stretches it out to movie length.

Utter waste of time.

HOLES IN THE SKY: THE SEAN MILLER STORY is a mockumentary (fake documentary) which purports to tell the story of someone who has had highly unusual experiences which are traced back to possible encounters with extraterrestrial beings.

In order to increase the feeling of authenticity, the credited film crew members play semi-fictional versions of themselves, and one suspects that even the name of the actor who plays the eponymous character, credited as "Sean Ed", might just be his first and middle name.

An issue that becomes apparent right away is that, contrary to what the title indicates, the story is not (just) about Sean Miller but even more so about the documentary film crew that goes to his house to interview him and film the strange happenings there. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that approach, but given the title, it amounts to a bit of bait and switch.

Apart from the ambivalent focus of the story, what is presented here is not any different than what has been presented in numerous alien encounter/abduction movies before.

From the perspective of someone who really believes in these kinds of encounters, it could be argued that this is the very point, that people should be exposed to the "usual" or expected manifestations of possible aliens encounters to recognize them for what they "really are", in the same way that we do not want novelty and variation of content in any given set of public service messages, since that would only undermine them by causing confusion.

But the problem with that argument is that whereas public service messages of the usual kind (e.g. About buckling up, avoidance of drunk driving, vaccination etc.) have essentially conclusive evidence behind them that is denied only by hardcore conspiracy theorists, the evidence for alien counters still falls sufficiently short that it has so far only convinced hardcore conspiracy theorists. In short, the evidentiary status of this subject is exactly the opposite of what it needs to be in order for this argument to work.

Apart from that, one can imagine that even within the confines of an entirely standard presentation of alien encounters, it is possible to weave compelling and innovative human interest stories. The closest the film comes to that is with the story of Brett, who is already facing severe life challenges when he takes on the assignment, but somehow his story failed to touch me.

Although toward the end, we are treated to a few special effects, the overall low production values did not do the movie a service.

I think this is a film that only fans of the subgenre of alien encounter found footage movies will enjoy.

The biggest fault of this movie is that it focuses way too much on the filmmakers, which really skews the focus of this movie. The part where they talk about sad songs is super cringe, and it feels like a vanity project. They don't even describe what the original Sean Miller story was until like a third of the way in. It feels like a student film, not in a good way. The audio is not good. I feel like we saw way too much of the filmmakers for this to be a believable found footage "documentary" film. The video quality is also pretty poor. The acting is poor. The most common voice and face is Ash, who's supposed to be a professional filmmaker/documentarian, which goes against how you make a documentary. This definitely feels like the filmmakers had friends left positive reviews, so the IMBD score is egregiously skewed.