A Haunting on Brockway Street

The film was fun. Like an extender reality ghost th show. Definitely 1.5 hr is what a film like this should be.... not Scorsese length.

Lots of good footage, need a expert doc editor to come and clean it up to give it a tighter narrative

The setup and evidence just seemed too "good" to be true; and the inclusion of real-life, respected, former "Ghost Hunters" member Steve Gonsalves really helped to sell it, but at about the 1:35 mark credibility went out the window. A secret, new approach is attempted; and the situation becomes so contrived, and the reactions so in-authentic that the "documentary" went from being an amazing, in-depth, legit, paranormal investigation, to just a pretty lazy indy horror film. Actually, let me say that that was the last straw, since credibility was strained beforehand with some hammy reactions from the actors, and one suspiciously well-timed cat cameo. I was trying to figure out if Haunted Saginaw was the real deal, and descriptions of Mr. Shippy's "organization" are all suspiciously cagey; but I know a very scripted plot twist when I see one. It was fairly intriguing until that point, but once the balloon was popped it all became just a wasted 90 minutes... why even finish it?

The evidence they claim to have is vague and inconclusive. There are more than just two people on their team and any one of them could slam doors or make footstep noises. I would like to actually see them investigate the noises they hear instead of just talking about it and then cutting to something else. They don't seem very surprised by any of the thumps or door slamming that happens. This, in my opinion, is an "investigation" trying to be a TV show or movie. I've seen better footage of investigations on YouTube.

I see all the low ratings because people think the show is staged and one person even said "vague" evidence and I have to think people don't realize that all of the shows in this series are a conglomeration of their complete investigation which spans months, even up to a year, in the location. This is not your weekly tv show where they spend one night, two if you're lucky, and make a decision. The evidence they collect is always pretty shocking because of the time they spend in each location. So I suppose that if I wanted to watch a show like this and the evidence put before on film would alter the way I had to think about the universe and my surroundings I would call it fake, vague, staged and even fugazi, too. Lucky for me I am not so naive about the afterlife. All that being said, other than the first couple "A Haunting on ...." (where they weren't as experienced at presenting their evidence) the series presents some of the most shocking evidence of hauntings I have seen on a consistent basis from a show. This episode (for lack of a better term) does not disappoint. I suggest watching it with a very open mind as it will test some people's belief systems but if you can you will enjoy it.

You're not going to convince me that you're doing an investigation into the paranormal when you have four different camera angles of one person talking, and none of the angles show the other three cameras or their operators. There's lots of cameras for sure, but they're recording the actors, not the environment.

I thought for sure I was going to be presented with outrageous evidence in conclusion, thus revealing itself to be a fake documentary. Instead, I'm left with underwhelming findings and lame 'reenactments' that are common with this sort of stuff.

In conclusion, I think this movie/episode of this team is very scripted and boring.