Trailer—The Chronicles of Bullet Head - Blacks & Ufos

The Chronicles of Bullet Head: Blacks & UFOs_720p(480P)

source: The Chronicles of Bullet Head: Blacks & UFOs

I almost feel like racial stereotype plays into how I am receiving this film. It's categorized "Documentary" but absolutely is dramatized. The cuts back and forth between reenactments and interview style seems of exceedingly low production value. I feel like the people involved are UFO enthusiasts who finally pieces together enough money to make a passion project UFO film surrounding "How would Black people of different backgrounds respond to a close encounter. The characters seem almost as all caricatures. I was just curious because there is no other film bad or good quite like this. I do not know what to make of this,

This is an odd one. It says that it is a documentary but there really isn't any documentary footage. It's combination of reenactments, interview footage and informational segments. The way the reenactments are cut together is confusing. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was supposed to have happened or what the timeline of events was. There was a chant. They saw a UFO? Moving stars? Glowing white space aliens? What? The way it is presented is very confusing. There's a lot of general new age stuff about crystal energy, levels of consciousness and so on. There's some of the usual UFO stuff in there like the Roswell Incident and Bob Lazar's claims. There's a dash of Afrocentrism with the Annunaki being depicted as enlightened black space aliens. There's some Van Daniken-esque catastrophe stuff combined with some Nibiru cataclysm stuff which is, perplexingly enough, depicted as having happened in the past even though the animation shows the Earth being destroyed. It's really all over the place. There are occasional lectures about...something? New age stuff? None of this stuff makes any sense and there are some funny gaffes like a guy talking about 18 million year cycles and pointing that a diagram with one section that clearly says 17 million years for some reason. There's another part where I think she is trying to explain persistence of vision and why a series of still frames appears to be moving but everything she says is just wrong. I really have no idea what events this is supposed to be documenting or what they are trying to bring across here. It's hard to give this a numeric rating but I am going to dock it quite a bit for lack of clarity and focus.