Atlas of Cursed Places

Just awful, as soon as the world's most annoying voice over started my heart sank. This series pretends to be a scientific look at superstitions and paranormal myths but is filmed more like a fiction. The viewer is drowned in slow motion shots of the presenter doing not terribly much while he narrates very little of consequence. In fact the series over all is more interested in Sam than the actual content he's meant to be investigating, as he poses in the dark in set piece rooms. Is this how we make data crunching look edgy now rather than showing what actual hard work looks like? Or is it just over compensating for the fact that clearly a team of researchers has already cribbed the data for him? When people are interviewed who have actual facts to expound they're either overlaid with over the top music or we're left struggling to focus on their data thanks to wobbly camera angles. Moreover, the information that does get brought in is scanty and spread out over multiple advert breaks. Very, very little is achieved in the time slot compared to other programs tackling the same subject. The longer I watched this the angrier I began to feel that this is how Nat Geo is treating its viewers now. Remember when Nat Geo used to be respected for it's well researched and well presented content? Yes, I'm struggling too, as it seems like such a long time ago now. Seriously, decide what you are and do it properly NG, you're either a documentary or you're a fiction, make your mind up and respect your content as well as the intelligence of your audience.

Typically National Geographic is honest, direct, and fact based. This demonstrates a lack of investigation, statements made about politics that are unrelated to the show, and bizarre behaviors.

I really enjoy the interesting take on studying paranormal subjects as it's a different point of view. Unfortunately, as we've seen too much of lately, science is being used intermittently to fit a narrative and it's laden with constant mainstream speak against society and its traditions.

Well !! It is quite eponymous with my review title. A tatooed, cool, muscle guy trying to seem edgy-sciency by spewing meaningless words like rational, plausaible, mundane, human mind playing tricks, mass hypnosis, myths. Oh and of course Occam's Razor, because nobody can be the edgy-sciency guy without uttering it. As another reviewer has said half of the show is slow motion shots of the presenter babbling those nonsense; "In fact the series over all is more interested in Sam than the actual content he's meant to be investigating, as he poses in the dark in set piece rooms." Someone just described RationalWiki as "Rationality is their flag, not their method." This show trying to emulate it is just the caricature of a caricature. It is absolute disaster.

...in 2 ways. 1) the historical "evidence" of the various cases bring forth nothing new to the table. For this I'd give the show 2 stars, but.... 2) The presenter comes across as an arrogant, low-IQ jock. Therefore detracting the show even further down to "a big fat 0" stars. Conclusion and advice: Don't waste your time on this.