Hacking the Wild (2017– )
4/10
You won't learn anything useful
6 April 2024
The premise is a guy with limited - as it turns out extremely limited - outdoor experience trying to survive for four days in the wilderness. He can bring along a backpack full of whatever he wants as long as it is something no sane person would bring with them on a hike.

If anyone actually wandered off into the wilds with the stuff this guy hauls around in his backpack they would need Search and Rescue before the weekend was out. He carries no useful items. Instead, he tries to Rube Goldberg complicated, prone to failure, and largely ineffectual solutions to basic problems with pre-established simple solutions.

Example. He wants fresh water. Does he bring purification tablets? No. Apparently there was no room left in his backpack after packing much more important outdoor items like an electric drill and a laptop. Does he boil the water? In one episode he boils a tiny amount of water in snail shells. A moment later he crafts an antenna out of aluminum foil making you wonder why he didn't make a bowl out of the foil and boil water in it. Never mind.

The next time he needs fresh water he makes a UV light wand from a pair of LEDs, one at the top, one at the bottom of a stirring stick. He then gently stirs a cup of water for a few moments and drinks it. This is a seriously stupid and dangerous alternative to boiling. UV light can disinfect, if it is of the right wavelength and has sufficient exposure, strength, and duration. This hack didn't meet the exposure criteria, at a minimum, as the water in the center of the glass was never exposed. Not to mention he placed the UV emitters in a glass test tube, blocking UVB. I just hope for his sake the water he drank came from a bottle of Perrier offscreen.

The point is his "hacks" are largely theoretical and not practical in the slightest. Compounding the problems are the obvious presence of a camera man, staged meetups at the conclusion of his hikes, laughable decision making, visible "cheater" devices to make his hacks work, and a generally unlikeable main character.

Between the technical problems and an actor who apparently has never been outside before this is poor viewing. Four stars for a decent idea of a show. No stars for the poor execution. Four stars.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed