So much average

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The acting in this movie is really good.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

My wife has been binge watching this show on Netflix or Amazon Prime, one of those two. She has subtitles on, and all I see in between the talking captions are, "Foreboding music" and "Eerie music". I just happened to pass by when on this particular episode of "Lynn's Lake House," someone mentioned they all went downstairs to try and collect more evidence. That person then said while downstairs, they all saw something moving on the porch and an investigator decided to take a photo.This caught my interest, being a photographer by trade. It showed a cropped image of a woman appearing in her late twenties, early 30s in old fashioned clothing on what looked like a raised porch that required steps to get up on. She was lit up from the bottom, and was semi transparent. Then the program showed the rest of the image, and a man's semi transparent head, lit up by the same light from below, was also seen in the uncropped photo. It was as if the man was trying to position the off camera flash for the "ghost". They then passed the "photo" around the kitchen table, just showing the white backs of what were to be oversized photos, without showing the actual photos. Then the reenactor, I guess portraying Lynn, the namesake of the episode, said how that was indeed Aunt Helen, and how she owned that house for sixty years and didn't want anyone in it. I could of sworn that I saw the same man from the photograph sitting at the table while they were passing the photo around.I was saying aloud, "If this is supposed to be the actual photo, then this is definitely not Aunt Helen!" My wife then turned to me and said, "Well, it is a reenactment of what happened!" I told her, "One of the investigators for the show took the photo. It is supposed to be of Aunt Helen in ghost form on the porch. Why must they need to recreate the photograph? Are they needing a signed model release from Aunt Helen? Is her ghost going to have her lawyer sue them for using her likeness in this episode?" It was then that I saw the reviews here of the extreme lack of evidence and decided to add my own review.

Oh Common! It's.... it's the same ''real person'' actress from Episode 1 to Episode 2. How can you consider this realistic at all? I mean... I know shows who reuse actors and actress like that... but not from the ''testimony'' of real people and especially not in episode 1 and episode 2

I made the mistake of watching this show after watching through all the episodes of the show Paranormal Witness. Paranormal Survivor is really bad, here's what I disliked most about it: They've used the same settings between different shows, the same house used a few times, the same attic used on two different shows/stories.. so you know the house the person is telling the story about is not the house being shown. This made it difficult to become immersed, because I knew the stories weren't actually taking place in the house I was looking at. This show contains a hefty dose of cheesy American production techniques. There's cheesy smiling ghosts even though the person says "they had a dead stare on their face". No, in the re-enactment they're smiling broadly. There's also cheesy looking 'demons' with red make up, horns and outstretched 'scary fingers' so bad I laughed and shook my head in disgust. The actors in the re-enactments are very poorly directed or just amateurs. All the actors look like they were drama students practising acting. "ok, now look surprised!" :O "now look scared!" :{ Also, quite a few of the actors look nothing like the person telling the story which left me confused in a few episodes as to who was meant to be who. In more than one episode a skinny person is played by an obese person. It's distracting and again, kills the immersion. They dump various paranormal "experts" into episodes without any background info so that I was constantly asking "who's this expert??". They also said nothing of any importance, they just gave justifications for things like "sometimes when people die, they don't know they're dead", and "it's normal to feel a cold patch when a ghost is nearby". After just a couple of episodes I started fast-forwarding whenever the "expert" would appear and start saying nothing of any importance. It's just like they felt obliged to have completely unknown "experts" talk because other shows do too. The only positive was that I enjoyed the ghost stories themselves true or not. Honestly though, if you want a quality production with excellent and enthralling re- enactments, avoid this and watch Paranormal Witness instead. The only thing I loathe about Paranormal Witness is the cheap, cheesy and laughable jump scare right at the end of the credits. It's such a pity American TV has a tendency to equate ghosts with cheap jump scares "boo!". That stuff is just really unscary and I don't know why TV shows seem unwilling to let the cheap tactics go.

It is this program that is the spoiler. What drab awful mindless crap. Tell me, what is the average education level of these "victims?" Why is it that they all seem about the same. I know!! Anyone with any education realizes what phony crap these "investigators" are displaying.Where are the people that want quality programs on the TV? Certainly not at this studio. Now, how do I know that this is the same script show after show after show?? Unfortunately one of my family members watches this filth. And I'm asked to leave the room because I keep pointing out the falsehoods, it irritates them. Even though they realize I am right!! I say, watch it on Comedy Central!! That's about all it's worth. You phonies should be banned from broadcasting anything on TV.