Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Sameeha Pugh It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

driller703 I love the show. The audio tracks are fine. The subjects are well chosen. The shows are well done, and the cast is great. The problem I have is the extremely distracting photography. I cannot fathom why any such technique would purposely be utilized in a show containing serious subject matter. The camera goes in and out of focus, and randomly zooms in and out. It shakes all around, and there is sometimes static on the screen. I could go on and on. I, as many others do, take this subject seriously. It is a shame that the video is so terribly distracting. Either hire a competent cameraman, or fire the Director of Photography.Stephen J Brown DDS, JD Harrisonburg, VA

ManOWar003 I do agree with some of the sentiments of the other comments here for "UFO Hunters". But, dammit, I like this show.I've always been a sucker for "In Search Of...", "Unsolved Mysteries" and the like. Not because I wholly believe the material presented, but for the shear presentation of it all.As far as "UFO Hunters" goes, it seems that the third season has taken a hat, drawn little pieces of paper with locations and/or historical references written on them, then tacked the "UFO" acronym onto it. Ta da! "Nazi UFO's"! I am glad, though, that the show is not airing on the "Sci-Fi" Channel, not to say that putting it on the History Channel suddenly gives "UFO Hunters" automatic credence. I do find that most of the experiments and analysis are done in earnest. Kevin, if I remember correctly, is the new science team member. I loved his reactions in his first episode listening to Bill automatically jump to wild possibilities. And that's what it's all about; the possibilities. He has since backed off a bit in his skepticism, and I'd like to see him take a stronger opposing stance. Here's hoping...Is this a documentary in the strictest sense? Probably not. Any apparent "written scenes" are done so for clarity's sake. Bill can be ridiculous in his assertions, like the uncle who drops by and tries to convince you to invest in his gambling machine business. His exuberance and passion about the subject, though, makes for some good television. And I appreciate the continued mystery, the new analysis of old cases and even the "let downs" at discovering that a rumor is probably untrue.

Seb I quite like this show and they do investigate some interesting cases but the subtitles are just awful. I know that sounds like a petty complaint but if you've seen it you'll know exactly what I mean.If they're playing a recording or phone call they flash up subtitles. Not just ordinary subtitles but each individual word appears on the screen in a random place really quickly until you find yourself wanting to look away because it's just so annoying. It's not like you can't understand what's being said so it's purely a design choice.Other than that it's a pretty good show if you're interested in this kind of thing.

merklekranz First, "U.F.O. Hunters" is slightly better than another series by "The History Channel" called "Monster Quest". Although both documentaries appear to be chasing smoke, the experiments by John Tindall elevate "U.F.O. Hunters" to slightly above average. The various episodes are a hit or miss affair, with "Invasion Texas 2008" the most recent report. Although a believer - skeptic balance is presented, Bill Birnes of "U.F.O. Magazine" comes across as insincere, trying to defend an indefensible position. If you enjoy "fringe science", quirky characters, questionable research, biased investigations, and searching old "crash sites", this is for you. - MERK