Only two of these "stories" felt even remotely true. The rest felt like they were very loosely based on only some actual events at best. So many of the details were derived or interpreted from presumption, or portrayed in such a way that is all assumed through implication. Some of the "truth" to the stories are merely assumed as truth cuz "there was a police report" so therefore...it must be true, right?! It's like Unsolved Mysteries met Goosebumps, but you're just supposed to take everyone's word as truth, despite there being very little to suggest it's anything other than a local legend. A lot of the acting in the dramatic recreations were also lame. And yet they portray the recreations in such way where they expect you to believe that's exactly how it happened. Here's the issue - MANY of the recreations didn't have ANY eye witnesses to them, so how on earth do you present alleged facts with no supporting evidence? This might as well have been kids telling you ghost stories they heard from other kids, who heard it from other kids...but you're just supposed to believe it's all true? Even when there's no documentation, evidence, or anything else at all?
Review of John Carpenter's Suburban Screams
