I love movies that actually scare me, but unfortunately very few are good enough to pull that off. THE FOURTH KIND is not one of them. This is a really, really stupid movie that trots out every known cliché in the Ufological dictionary of dumbness -- including alien abduction, memories retrieved through hypnosis, and the fact-challenged notion (popularized decades ago by Erich von Daniken and Brinsley Le Poer Trench, and roundly refuted since) that flying saucers are the vehicles of "ancient astronauts" who have been visiting Earth for millennia. Now, it would be possible to juggle these elements into a new narrative and achieve something worthwhile, but nothing like that happened in the present case. This movie offers nothing new in the way of ideas, and nothing impressive in the way of writing, acting, or photography.
Before going to see this film I glanced at several comments on the IMDb site, and writer after writer testified how terrifying they found THE FOURTH KIND. Now, you can't argue about taste, but given the extreme ordinariness of this movie, I strongly suspect that these comments are part of the film's marketing campaign and do not reflect the reactions of real viewers.
What definitely count as false advertising are the repeated claims that this movie is based on real individuals (e.g., a therapist named Abigail Tyler) and true events. The movie itself contains numerous segments that it identifies as raw video captured by these supposedly real individuals. Since the video is obviously fake, and since Google searches can't substantiate the existence of Abigail Tyler, those advertising claims are deceptive.
This bugs me. A site like IMDb should not be lying to its visitors.
Before going to see this film I glanced at several comments on the IMDb site, and writer after writer testified how terrifying they found THE FOURTH KIND. Now, you can't argue about taste, but given the extreme ordinariness of this movie, I strongly suspect that these comments are part of the film's marketing campaign and do not reflect the reactions of real viewers.
What definitely count as false advertising are the repeated claims that this movie is based on real individuals (e.g., a therapist named Abigail Tyler) and true events. The movie itself contains numerous segments that it identifies as raw video captured by these supposedly real individuals. Since the video is obviously fake, and since Google searches can't substantiate the existence of Abigail Tyler, those advertising claims are deceptive.
This bugs me. A site like IMDb should not be lying to its visitors.