Atlas of Cursed Places

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!

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.

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.

...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.

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.