Atlas of Cursed Places

...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.

Very entertaining and gives some extra information about places that I have watched on shows before but he finds some interesting extra tidbit of information. Episode 4 on the swamps of LA was very interesting and on point with the fact that we humans really screwed the pooch on how we treated the area. I am looking forward to more of them.

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 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

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.