GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

gavin6942 An Arizona logger mysteriously disappears for five days in an alleged encounter with a flying saucer in 1975.For most of the film, we get more or less a drama. We know the logger has been abducted, but the authorities do not necessarily believe the other loggers. So there is some struggle, some argument, some emotional tension. Nothing too science fiction. And, indeed, they could have made the film completely without any of the science fiction if they wanted to.But no, we also get a glimpse of where the logger went... and it is pretty wild. The film would be good either way, but those who like alien films will appreciate the effects and design that went into this. Definitely an understated modern classic.

bkoganbing In his life and that's still ongoing Travis Walton has proved to be the poster boy for UFOs. If you believe him this film is an account of this rather ordinary life who had an extraordinary experience.Walton who is played here by D.W. Moffett is a member of a logging crew that is run by his brother-in-law Robert Patrick and one fine day after leaving the job he is whisked up in one of those UFOs and disappears.The folks in the Arizona small town where he comes from are rather skeptical and the sheriff who is played by Noble Willingham knows when he's over his head. He brings in the Arizona State Police's chief investigator James Garner when Moffett goes missing and for five days Garner makes life miserable for the rest of the crew as he doesn't believe some big spaceship whisked Moffett away.But that's nothing compared to the fuss when a naked Moffett telephones from a deserted gas station and his family goes and picks him up. He's one frightened dude as you can imagine and when we see what these aliens look like it's understandable.What's so frightening about them is that they just see us as lab rats to be experimented with. It's the recurring theme that people like Walton tell. But no one like Travis Walton ever got so much public attention.The problem of telling stories about true people is that the story isn't ended. Films like Close Encounters Of The Third Kind by their nature can be better structured because an author does the structure. We don't know whether Walton will eventually be a human cultural icon or be branded a phony as was the case of Anna Anderson claiming to be the Russian crown princess Anastasia.In any event the cast playing several very average people acquits themselves well in a decent knockoff of Close Encounters.

poe426 It never fails to annoy me when someone claims to have had a "close encounter" with an alien/ghost/etc. From Betty and Barney Hill and their "alien abduction" to the financially-challenged folks who claimed to have been driven from their home in THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (who later 'fessed up and admitted that what they really needed was the money to pay their mortgage and what better way to get it than to dredge up a potential bestseller by claiming blah blah blah...) to COMMUNION and A FIRE IN THE SKY, it's all- in my own, ever humble opinion- balderdash. Still, it IS funny to think that extraterrestrial gynecologists or just plain alien pervs would make the journey from the depths of deep space to Mother Earth just to ride some rump. For filmmakers who might want to poke fun at the e-t bareback riders: have a hillbilly claim to have been anally probed by aliens; nobody believes him... until he turns up PREGNANT. THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, by the way, was the only movie to ever put me to sleep in a theater- and I've seen Michael Bay movies.

dimplet My main gripe is that the logging crew are portrayed as 1990s types, rather than rural 1970s people. If you look at the photos of the actual people from Travis Walton's website, they don't look at all like their portrayals in the movie. The acting was good, with strong emotional demonstrations by the logging crew; without that, this movie would have been really weak. The only star I recognized was James Garner, whose presence added greatly to the movie's credibility (ironically, his character was the main skeptic). The Walton encounter occurred before the wave of interest in UFOs that arose in the 1980s, following the publication of Shirley MacLaine's "Out on a Limb" in 1983, and especially the broadcast of the TV movie in 1987. It also preceded "Close Encounters" by two years; perhaps it inspired some elements of the movie? While there was considerable interest in the press about UFOs in the 1950s, plus some movies, etc., there was little non-fiction about abductions until decades later. So Walton's account would not have been "inspired" by other descriptions. However, it also seems to vary from the more common accounts of abductions. If people independently describe similar details, this strengthens their credibility. Without reading the book, there is not enough detail in this movie to make any judgment about the credibility of Walton's account. Aside from the movie special effects re-enactment, there is no actual talk from Walton describing in his own words what happened. There is a whole lot missing, like how he got out of the UFO and wound up naked at a cross- roads in the rain.It is interesting to see how the townsfolk reacted. Perhaps the strongest scene in the movie was when Mike Rogers confronted the townsfolk in the church. I'm not sure how accurate that all was, this being a Hollywood movie. As to motive, so-called skeptics are too quick to accuse people like Walton of seeking publicity with made up stories. I can't believe Walton would make up a story like this back in the 1970s, especially in a small town, etc. Most abductees don't want to talk about these things publicly. But Walton's five-day disappearance begged that question. However, the folks making the movie apparently wanted to cash in on the wave of interest in UFOs, post-MacLaine. I think the movie presents the events in a fairly reasonable fashion, though, again, I'm not sure how accurate it is. But I would not say it is a particularly realistic presentation of the abduction experience compared to the more common, mainstream accounts. I see from the discussion on IMDb that Walton now believes the aliens were not as malevolent as he thought, initially, and perhaps were trying to help him. This makes sense. As to the so-called theory that UFO sightings are more common in rural areas, nonsense. UFOs have been seen in and around New York City, including along the Grand Central Parkway and hovering over the New Jersey Palisades, directly across the Hudson River from Manhattan. And then there was the sighting from the Brooklyn Bridge of a woman being abducted from her apartment. Perhaps New Yorkers are just a bit more blasé about oddities. While rummaging through my brain for other similar accounts, I started to remember old images and descriptions like those in the film of the cavernous area. The trouble is, I don't remember the specifics. It is possible I am just remembering having seen the movie years ago on VHS, or having read the book. The irony is there is so much stuff out about UFOs now, that anyone now would have difficulty telling whether it was a bad dream inspired by some movie or book or TV show, and anyone claiming to have had an encounter might face similar questions. On the other hand, there are now thousands of people describing UFO encounters, often with common threads, all over the world, including Presidents, governors, high ranking military brass, and scientists. This, in retrospect, probably vindicates Walton's account. But while missing time is common, it is very rare to show up days later, naked. And most people simply don't remember their abduction. How Walton recalled it is not made clear in the movie -- did the doctor put him into hypnosis? There would probably be many more descriptions of UFO encounters, but most people who know keep their mouths shut. Why? Just look at this film, and you will see why.The bottom line: While this movie is reasonably interesting, compared to other fiction and non-fiction movies about UFOs, it comes across as a bit weak and not terribly enlightening.