I am a seasoned paranormal investigator, so I have quite a bit of credibility on the subject this movie failingly attempts to cover. In an investigation, especially one that is being filmed and put out to the public, you want to total up the time of your presentation, and then split it into thirds, so as not to bore the holy crap out of your audience. Let's look at the breakdown in thirds:
1. (First 1/3) Present your investigation into the history of the haunting and anything that might have led to said haunting, e.g., house built on or near a graveyard, nearby war location, native American-Indian burial site, murder(s), suicide(s), maltreatment, or other traumatic human torture or brutalization at the site, etc.
2. (Second 1/3) Having the evidence, discuss your approach with the viewer. Make it interactive, as if they are going to be investigating with you. Break the third wall! For instance, do your initial walkthrough on camera while speaking to the viewer about your findings and how they coincide with the plans you have devised for your forthcoming investigation.
3. (Third 1/3) This part can be a little longer than just 1/3, maybe overlapping some of the time used for the second 1/3. This is the bread and butter of the investigation, and it's what you want to spend the most time on. This is what people came to see!
In this documentary, about ten to fifteen minutes were spent actually investigating. What a let-down! What a bunch of nonsense! Also, the people who claimed to be "mediums" were nowhere close to being such. It was easy to tell they were acting (badly) and lying. "Colored hair" hadn't a clue what she was doing. The other one was so unbelievable that I have already forgotten what she said, or even looked like, and I only watched this three days ago.
You can give this nonsense a wide berth. It's simply a very poorly done paranormal investigation that could have been so, SO much better!
3. (Third.