acerbus_8
Joined Jan 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings9
acerbus_8's rating
Reviews9
acerbus_8's rating
Most "paranormal" shows are all about horror imagery, hysteria and a lot of jumping to conclusions. I get the reasoning behind, as the producers are most likely identifying a target audience of horror fans. Which makes sense targeting-wise. But which absolutely don't make sense to me, when these shows over and over again claim the merits of their "scientific" approach. I've often been annoyed by, for instance, Ghost Adventures, where the host will jump to conclusions about demonic hauntings from a small tidbit he got before his "investigation" has begun, only to claim multiple times during an episode how "scientific" his approach is.
Ghost Chasers manage to offer a more objective counterpoint to the sensationalistic approach of most American "paranormal" shows.
The team behind adopt the role of (somewhat) skeptic. Instead of almost everything being construed as paranormal. Most of the time the team of Ghost Chasers offer up more mundane explanations for some of their experiences, where most other shows would've called it demons or sassy witchings or super haunted portals to the afterlife of hell or whatever.
I love the fact that there isn't any horror imagery, which gives more credence to the seriousness of the show.
In my opinion this show could've been even more serious and objective. Using an app on your smartphone to hear ghosts speak, doesn't strike me as super logical. What ghost sensors did Samsung put in their phones? Underlying music and sound effects could've been used more sparingly as well, because sometimes its hard to tell if it is postulated paranormal captures or post-production added effects to add tension. And a more consistent objectivity would also suit the 3 guys who aren't psychic. As sometimes there is still the unwarranted conclusion that it must've been a ghost.
But to sum up. An interesting and a bit more serious addition to the whole "paranormal" "reality"-show trend. Definitely recommendable.
Ghost Chasers manage to offer a more objective counterpoint to the sensationalistic approach of most American "paranormal" shows.
The team behind adopt the role of (somewhat) skeptic. Instead of almost everything being construed as paranormal. Most of the time the team of Ghost Chasers offer up more mundane explanations for some of their experiences, where most other shows would've called it demons or sassy witchings or super haunted portals to the afterlife of hell or whatever.
I love the fact that there isn't any horror imagery, which gives more credence to the seriousness of the show.
In my opinion this show could've been even more serious and objective. Using an app on your smartphone to hear ghosts speak, doesn't strike me as super logical. What ghost sensors did Samsung put in their phones? Underlying music and sound effects could've been used more sparingly as well, because sometimes its hard to tell if it is postulated paranormal captures or post-production added effects to add tension. And a more consistent objectivity would also suit the 3 guys who aren't psychic. As sometimes there is still the unwarranted conclusion that it must've been a ghost.
But to sum up. An interesting and a bit more serious addition to the whole "paranormal" "reality"-show trend. Definitely recommendable.
Ghost Stalkers ... terrible name. But for the most part this genre of reality filmmaking hasn't set itself apart by having good copyrighters.
For the most part Ghost Stalkers is an alright show compared to it's peers (like for instans Ghost Adventures, Ghost Asylum etc.). Unfortunately GS exhibit the same latent problems that most of the genre exhibit and a few original.
The hosts of Ghost Stalkers had probably looked at the marked of ghost hunting shows before pitching their idea for a show, and concluded that they had to have some kind of schtick to sell it. That schtick is all to obviously an incredible focus on (ghost) portals. This quickly becomes a huge weight on the show as the hosts keep trying to pigeonhole everything (and I do mean everything) into some kind of portal theory. "Some people say they have ghosts here. There must be portals as well." "This was once a big hospital. Then there's definitely portals here." "There's rumors of shadow people. A portal started those rumors." "Somebody snatched my sandwich. That darned portal again." "This dude died? Hey, it must've been a portal who did it." "Look a rock. And it is right under a portal ... maybe."
Most of these ghost shows are terrible in their rhetoric. Whenever they see something it is demonic in an effort to amp up the drama factor. Whenever they talk to "witnesses", they put words in their mouths and so on. Historic records and witness statements are overdramatized, for instance: "There have been sighting of a shadow man. A possibly violent shadow man". But Ghost Stalkers are probably some of the worst at it. Mostly because they have this portal concept they simply have to sell. So whenever they try to conclude anything. It always end up in some ridiculous explanations of lapsed logic about portals.
They try to be "scientific", but with pages taken from the other ghost hunting shows the science involved is kept to a modicum (and I'm being generous here). For the most part they just pull some real equipment in and try to "explain" why the equipment should work with their mission in mind. For instance at one point they put a smokemachine into a room and when the smoke twists a little, they conclude they have a portal.
There's other problems too, the biggest on is the voice-over (done by one of the hosts) that tries to go for some sort of eerie monotone vibe. It doesn't work. It just sounds ridiculous.
Ghost Stalkers has a lot of shortcomings but at least it doesn't have to fill it's running time with recreations and unnecessary horror cuts, to try and make up for little substance. Even though it isn't overflowing with substance.
A long story short. Ghost Stalkers is an alright ghost hunting shows. If you've run out of everything else in that department then it is fair enough viewing. Just don't expect any miracles from it.
For the most part Ghost Stalkers is an alright show compared to it's peers (like for instans Ghost Adventures, Ghost Asylum etc.). Unfortunately GS exhibit the same latent problems that most of the genre exhibit and a few original.
The hosts of Ghost Stalkers had probably looked at the marked of ghost hunting shows before pitching their idea for a show, and concluded that they had to have some kind of schtick to sell it. That schtick is all to obviously an incredible focus on (ghost) portals. This quickly becomes a huge weight on the show as the hosts keep trying to pigeonhole everything (and I do mean everything) into some kind of portal theory. "Some people say they have ghosts here. There must be portals as well." "This was once a big hospital. Then there's definitely portals here." "There's rumors of shadow people. A portal started those rumors." "Somebody snatched my sandwich. That darned portal again." "This dude died? Hey, it must've been a portal who did it." "Look a rock. And it is right under a portal ... maybe."
Most of these ghost shows are terrible in their rhetoric. Whenever they see something it is demonic in an effort to amp up the drama factor. Whenever they talk to "witnesses", they put words in their mouths and so on. Historic records and witness statements are overdramatized, for instance: "There have been sighting of a shadow man. A possibly violent shadow man". But Ghost Stalkers are probably some of the worst at it. Mostly because they have this portal concept they simply have to sell. So whenever they try to conclude anything. It always end up in some ridiculous explanations of lapsed logic about portals.
They try to be "scientific", but with pages taken from the other ghost hunting shows the science involved is kept to a modicum (and I'm being generous here). For the most part they just pull some real equipment in and try to "explain" why the equipment should work with their mission in mind. For instance at one point they put a smokemachine into a room and when the smoke twists a little, they conclude they have a portal.
There's other problems too, the biggest on is the voice-over (done by one of the hosts) that tries to go for some sort of eerie monotone vibe. It doesn't work. It just sounds ridiculous.
Ghost Stalkers has a lot of shortcomings but at least it doesn't have to fill it's running time with recreations and unnecessary horror cuts, to try and make up for little substance. Even though it isn't overflowing with substance.
A long story short. Ghost Stalkers is an alright ghost hunting shows. If you've run out of everything else in that department then it is fair enough viewing. Just don't expect any miracles from it.
It quickly becomes pretty clear that this "documentary" is a personal attack on a documentary called Gasland and it's director. Had the "doc" been much better in it's execution and less eager to subvert just one man and his work. Then it could actually have delivered something that could've sparked a debate.
The theme is therefor less about researching fracking, and more about trying to discredit Gasland.
A lot of effort is poured into maintaining that the film was funded on Kickstarter. Actually so much effort go into iterating this, that it begins to become suspect. On top of this, researching superficially on the director "Phelim McAleer" quickly tells the story of a "documentarian" who has worked to support big business.
As for FrackNation as a whole it is a disjointed piece of work that, in its quest to connect human emotion with fracking, keep losing focus throughout. From obviously staged "demonstrations" in Dimock & ridiculous confrontations. To the involuntarily humorous, with it's attacks on renewable energy: "Wind turbines are massive, 24/7, ruthless, bird killing machines" and scenes where fracking becomes the great savior of farms (even though fracking has nothing to do with farming) around the country, purporting that should a farm dissipate it would automatically be replaced by residential buildings which would contribute massive amounts of pollution through traffic and well-digging.
We also have an interview with a biochemist called Bruce Ames on the chemicals used in the fracking process. But instead of explaining the chemicals, the issue is sidestepped and the conclusion just becomes "Scare stories sell newspapers", again taking jabs at Gasland.
It all closes with a corny propagandistic ad for energy, that feels completely disjointed from the rest of the movie. And a monologue that concludes, without any real data, that fracking is completely without problems.
In conclusion. The documentary merits of this film are severely lacking and even though the film-maker behind, goes to great lengths to talk up the "documentary's" independence from the energy industry. You're left with the distinct feeling that even though the film was financed through Kickstarter, the backers are the energy industry who've just made the contributions look like they were donated by a lot of different people.
Now I have to see Gasland. Hopefully that will be much better than this dribble.
The theme is therefor less about researching fracking, and more about trying to discredit Gasland.
A lot of effort is poured into maintaining that the film was funded on Kickstarter. Actually so much effort go into iterating this, that it begins to become suspect. On top of this, researching superficially on the director "Phelim McAleer" quickly tells the story of a "documentarian" who has worked to support big business.
As for FrackNation as a whole it is a disjointed piece of work that, in its quest to connect human emotion with fracking, keep losing focus throughout. From obviously staged "demonstrations" in Dimock & ridiculous confrontations. To the involuntarily humorous, with it's attacks on renewable energy: "Wind turbines are massive, 24/7, ruthless, bird killing machines" and scenes where fracking becomes the great savior of farms (even though fracking has nothing to do with farming) around the country, purporting that should a farm dissipate it would automatically be replaced by residential buildings which would contribute massive amounts of pollution through traffic and well-digging.
We also have an interview with a biochemist called Bruce Ames on the chemicals used in the fracking process. But instead of explaining the chemicals, the issue is sidestepped and the conclusion just becomes "Scare stories sell newspapers", again taking jabs at Gasland.
It all closes with a corny propagandistic ad for energy, that feels completely disjointed from the rest of the movie. And a monologue that concludes, without any real data, that fracking is completely without problems.
In conclusion. The documentary merits of this film are severely lacking and even though the film-maker behind, goes to great lengths to talk up the "documentary's" independence from the energy industry. You're left with the distinct feeling that even though the film was financed through Kickstarter, the backers are the energy industry who've just made the contributions look like they were donated by a lot of different people.
Now I have to see Gasland. Hopefully that will be much better than this dribble.