A Haunting in Blue Hill

I am a seasoned paranormal investigator, so I have quite a bit of credibility on the subject this movie failingly attempts to cover. In an investigation, especially one that is being filmed and put out to the public, you want to total up the time of your presentation, and then split it into thirds, so as not to bore the holy crap out of your audience. Let's look at the breakdown in thirds:

1. (First 1/3) Present your investigation into the history of the haunting and anything that might have led to said haunting, e.g., house built on or near a graveyard, nearby war location, native American-Indian burial site, murder(s), suicide(s), maltreatment, or other traumatic human torture or brutalization at the site, etc.

2. (Second 1/3) Having the evidence, discuss your approach with the viewer. Make it interactive, as if they are going to be investigating with you. Break the third wall! For instance, do your initial walkthrough on camera while speaking to the viewer about your findings and how they coincide with the plans you have devised for your forthcoming investigation.

3. (Third 1/3) This part can be a little longer than just 1/3, maybe overlapping some of the time used for the second 1/3. This is the bread and butter of the investigation, and it's what you want to spend the most time on. This is what people came to see!

In this documentary, about ten to fifteen minutes were spent actually investigating. What a let-down! What a bunch of nonsense! Also, the people who claimed to be "mediums" were nowhere close to being such. It was easy to tell they were acting (badly) and lying. "Colored hair" hadn't a clue what she was doing. The other one was so unbelievable that I have already forgotten what she said, or even looked like, and I only watched this three days ago.

You can give this nonsense a wide berth. It's simply a very poorly done paranormal investigation that could have been so, SO much better!

3. (Third.

...you can't imagine why you'd want to watch the entire documentary.

My Mom and I love paranormal shows, of all types, but "ghost-hunting" shows, for lack of a better term, are our favorite. We love hearing about the history of the location, watching the investigation and hoping for real evidence captured, that the team can recap to follow-up everything they've done.

That being said, there is one type of paranormal documentary we both unilaterally refuse to watch...

The ones where the silly music and sound affects are so loud, you can't hear people speaking or, if evidence is captured in an investigation, we can't hear it because they've got screechy whistles and piano twangs playing over it.

There's nothing more frustrating in this type of documentary, especially because there's generally so much quiet, since the whole point is to collect evidence of knocks and otherworldly voices, etc. You want that quiet so you can hear what the investigators are hearing.

That is if they aren't yapping non-stop themselves, which is another pet peeve.

But this documentary is one we didn't even bother to watch, because when we put the trailer on to see what it might be like, from the get-go the "background" music is so loud you can barely make out what is being said by the narrator.

Ya know, the one telling you what the film is gonna be about? You'd think they might want people to hear that, but no, they went with supposedly spooky musical sound affects.

So we gave this one a full pass.