Auf den Spuren verfluchter Orte

Host Sam Sheridan is no Josh Gates (not setting the bar very high here), but where Josh makes bad jokes that are sometimes funny, this show relies more on the incorrect usage of big words: "Apocryphal" in a context clearly indicating that "Apocalyptic" is probably what he meant, "Hydrocarbon" rather than "Radiocarbon" dating, etc.

Interestingly, and possibly tellingly, there are (at least at the time of this review) no writing credits for this show. Is Sam just winging it without a script? Net Geo describes him as an "author and adventurer", which for me makes his poor word choices even funnier. But hey -- he must be tough and cool, because he has tattoos! Plus, he uses mild profanity, too -- what a rebel!

Ragging on the host, while fun, isn't the entire point of my review. If you are entertained by unintentional comedy, you may find this show worth watching.

I did have to dock it one star for the inclusion (in at least one episode) of Michael Schermer, "professional skeptic"; this guy's such an arrogant tool that he brings down any show in which he appears. Also annoying is how the host acts like an enthusiast of the episode's topic, only to "turn skeptic" himself at the very end. Skepticism is fine, but be consistent -- poke holes along the way, don't just say "there's probably nothing to it" after spending 40 minutes (of air time, not to mention travel and production time) chasing down inconclusive (in either direction) leads. If Schermer becomes a regular guest, I won't be sticking around; otherwise it's mostly harmless, silly fun.

...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.

Some people are finding inadequacies and fault in the host and his narration. I think, as is often the case, their comments merely reflect their own. I kind of enjoy the more accessible language, and find it refreshing, more entertaining, and much less stodgy than most docu-narration. All of this makes the show more appealing to a broader and, likely, a more youthful audience. Certainly, that's a good thing.

I've been fascinated my entire life by all of the subjects so far presented in this production, and though I may be sliding towards feeling more than a little disappointment about some of the mystery being taken away, I'm satisfied that there are possible and plausible answers to some of these enduring questions. I think some people need to just chill a bit and just accept this for what it is - entertaining education on subjects not in standard curricula. I'd be happy as hell if my kids wanted to watch something like this, and I enjoy it too. It's disappointing, but haters gonna hate. :P

What's been bugging me lately, and it's not limited to this show, is the irrational editing-out of things like human anatomy, as if it's something shameful. Classical art having nipples (both male and female), and butt cracks blurred over is absolutely ridiculous, especially on a National Geographic production. I don't want to get started on a rant about that, but it would be worth it!

I should have known exactly what this was going to be when I saw "NatGeo". The narrator tries to "hip" with lines like "Hell ya Bro! Lets go look for Atlantis". He also sounds very uneducated about many areas with often silly speculation and commentary. This is a superficial "history" show at best but more a way to sell advertising time. Really has been such a waste of your time that I made the effort to warn others. If you read very little and you find wrestling has challenging stories then you may find this very "educational". LOL

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.