The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia

Overall, THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: THE GHOSTS OF GEORGIA, does a good job delivering what it promises, despite the idiotic tie to its namesake movie. Folks, this film has literally nothing to do with the first film NOR Connecticut, even tangentially, and the transparent money grab in the title was all at once deceptive, obvious, and detrimental to the movie's image. So much so, I almost didn't watch it.

So why did I watch? The simple answer is Abigail Spencer, a truly fine actor I first encountered in her role on the excellent TV series RECTIFY. Spencer is spot on and was the driving force behind this movie. Her performance as a clairvoyant mom-in-denial from a family of clairvoyants is well executed -- not her best work I've seen, but just very good. Nevermind the script is a rife with clichés and could have offered so much more to work with had the writer been on his game. Spencer still digs in and elevates her character beyond what one would expect from both a weak script and the genre. I predict there are big things in the future for this skilled actor.

Not that the other actors gave poor performances. Katee Sackhoff, whose acting can be hit or miss (which may be a function of her choice of roles), delivered a good performance and especially rang true as Spencer's sister. There's an undeniable sibling vibe between the two, and this helps the movie.

Chad Michael Murray adds some fairly non-substantive beefcake to the mix. He didn't make any big mistakes, but it's hard to mess up showing off a polished physique and looking hot in jeans. Finally, toward the end, he hits the sweet spot in a dialog with Spencer that reveals he actually can act at more than just a surface level of non-wooden competence. It's an important scene, and he gamely rises to the occasion.

A juvenile Emily Alyn Lind and her chin deliver a performance better than anything I've seen in her young adult roles. She was god awful in the recent THE BABYSITTER: KILLER QUEEN, and this movie is a reminder that she can actually act if she could just get out of her own way.

I would be remiss not to mention the great Cicely Tyson, positively the most unnerving though benign character in the film. She accomplishes more in a few short minutes of screen time than most of actors can in an hour. She's a national treasure, brilliant and timeless, as always.

What hurts THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: THE GHOSTS OF GEORGIA most of all is the aforementioned weak script by David Coggeshall. It stays on track and doesn't lose focus, but it also somehow lacks excitement. It occasionally plods, but that's not the worst of it. It moves in a straight line, and mostly lacks the reversals and twists that create true suspense. Dialog is its main strength, and at its best, it reads as real and well though out. There's very little throwaway jawing. Oh that dialog were all a script needed to succeed. Coggeshall has an impressive list of credits -- maybe he just wasn't feeling it on this one.

More, director Tom Elkins, an apparently first-time director, seemed to play it a little bit safe. It appears he stayed in his lane rather than try to remediate. Overall, however, a good first film for a new director, which could have been great had his more experienced scriptwriter handed him something less in need of fixing.

Otherwise, the production values were good. The camera work is focused and clear, even in dark scenes; the color saturation is good; the lighting is atmospheric; and the sparse special effects, while not at all original (are we getting tired of the elastic ghoulie scream mouth yet), are clean and well done. It would have been cool if the filmmakers had followed the lead of, for example, the Hearse Driver in BURNT OFFERINGS, whose smile haunted me in the dark for years. Let the actors be scary. They can do it, and without the help of a computer!

The sound, too, was good: the dialog was crisp and clear, the sound effects were correct, the Foley artists exercised restraint, and the music provided atmosphere while not competing with more important elements of the film.

There are a lot of good things to say about THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: THE GHOSTS OF GEORGIA. I debated between a 6- and 7-star rating. Unfortunately, the good can't overcome the deficiencies in this movie's founding document.

Recommendation: Watch for good performances and good production values, while understanding the script overall is workmanlike at best, though not full of holes and sporting some pretty decent dialog.

"Ghosts Of Georgia" follows a young family starting out in a new home with not a lot of money but plenty of land and love in a small town in Georgia. It is a place steeped in history as the family soon learns. As part of the Underground Railroad. Soon paranormal events begin to unfold as the family settles in with most of the activity centering around the gifts of the female members of the family. The story is sold as a sequel to the original film of the same title but is a completely stand along event with no correlation. It is one of the most famous haunting cases in the paranormal investigative world and also one my favorite creepy tales. "Ghosts Of Georgia" was the directorial debut of Tom Elkins who worked on several other movies about ghosts.The film stars Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray, Katee Sackhoff and Emily Alyn Lind all of whom give a pretty standard performance except for Emily who played Heidi. Her performance was far exceeding of the standard capabilities and almost showed the young actress to possess talent like such actresses' as Chloe Moretz or Dakota Fanning.

I wasn't expecting much going into this film mostly due to the ridiculous title of the picture but I actually enjoyed the film. There was the basic elements here to be far more scarier but where held back by standard effects tricks that now plague paranormal movies almost to the point of making them boring. Yet at moments I felt actual suspense and eerie tension as more dramatic scenes unfolded into real chilling events. The setting and story was creepy and the film version held a far more haunting presence than what I originally imagined from the actual story. The film veered from the true paranormal case with a more morbid, dark representation of the evil spirit haunting the land as well as the family. The action sequences were produced well creating a relief from the mediocre dramatic moments that tended to case me to drift off. I found "Ghosts Of Georgia" to be a far better ghost flick it's predecessor and think the film could have gained a better reception from audiences had they not gone with the title. This film had a great set up, acceptable acting, plus all the expected moments of creepy chilling paranormal activity. It isn't going to be a movie that really scares the hell out of anyone over the age of ten but it is a great movie about a haunting. The only downside was the very end after the amped up climax that felt way to hallmark-y, coming off completely cheesy and made for TV. I would tell people to see it and expect a better movie than "The Haunting In Connecticut" or "The Apparition" but don't expect the same amount of fright that you get with "The Amityville Horror" or even "Grave Encounters".

Claiming to be based on a true story, "The Haunting in Connecticut 2" follows a young family who have just moved into a new home in Georgia. Not long after their arrival, the daughter, Heidi (Emily Alyn Lind) begins to see people in and around their home. One ghost who seems to be extremely menacing is Mr. Gordy, who is discovered to be the last inhabitant of the home. The family also learns that their house was once a stop on the Underground Railroad. The station-master who lived there saved the lives of many slaves, but was discovered and killed. As the ghosts become more threatening and begin getting physical, it is only a matter of time before Heidi is hurt, or even killed.

This film can be described in four simple words. Dumb title, good movie. I had extremely low expectations for "Ghosts of Georgia". Direct-to-VOD horror movie sequels are usually pretty bad as it is, but with a first time director, I definitely didn't expect much. Luckily I can say that I was very pleasantly surprised. By no means is this a great movie, but it is certainly enjoyable.

The plot is actually pretty original and very creepy. The most impressive part is the fantastic back-story. I loved the way it used a part of American history to serve as the back-story. The flashback scenes were pretty well-done, but the non-stop camera cuts got old after a while.

The acting is pretty impressive given the type of movie. Abigail Spencer's character is very annoying, but her acting is pretty good. Chad Michael Murray was... well he was Chad Michael Murray. Katee Sackhoff definitely brought a lot to the movie. She was a comic-relief, but was also very serious when needed.

However, the most impressive performance was by Emily Alyn Lind, who played Heidi. Just like Megan Charpentier in "Mama", Lind carries "Ghosts of Georgia". It is important to have a good child actor, especially when they are on screen almost the entire time, and Lind doesn't disappoint. She really effectively conveys how terrified she is, without going over the top.

Director Tom Elkins does a pretty solid directing job, especially for his first film. While the direction is a little rough around the edges, he did a better job than most would. For the most part, Elkins managed to keep a high level of suspense. Unfortunately most of the jump scares were aided by sudden bursts of music. Plus the constant switching from black and white to color at the end got annoying and nauseating very quickly.

Overall, "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" was an above-average horror sequel, with many exciting twists and turns. The movie managed to keep my attention the whole time, and I would've watched it for another hour. It's not a great movie, but it's fun, and that's all I care about. I will be looking forward to a sequel, especially if David Coggeshall comes back as the writer.

bobbysmoviereviews.blogspot.com

For a standalone sequel The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia could have been far more worse. The film had some freaky visuals, a few old-fashioned frights and decent enough acting and an appropriate atmosphere to fit the mold. I think the title should just be Ghosts of Georgia because the film has no relation to the first movie and it's not even based in Connecticut, it seems obvious that was a cash grab decision. This new story is purposively based on actual events about the Wyrick family and even has a made for TV. Reenactment film called A Haunting in Georgia, which I haven't seen but I'm interested now. The back-story on why this paranormal disturbance is happening was dealt with in a non hard-hitting way and wasn't effective. The story/script just has several gaps and flaws that holds the film back and wasn't genuine or believable.

The performances were decent but not great. Abigail Spenser plays Lisa Wyrick, a mother and wife who is struggling with a passed down gift of seeing and speaking with the dead, her sister and daughter also seem to have this suppose gift. Abigail was the highlight of this lackluster horror film and carries most of the weight and but the script limited her performance. Chad Michael Murray plays the father Andy Wyrick and gives a pretty bland performance and doesn't have much of a part. Katee Sackhoff from Battlestar Galactica fame plays the sister of Lisa, Joyce Wyrick, who also has the gift of seeing the dead. Katee gives a lively performance but like Chad's character there wasn't much to her role even though she has one of the more memorable moments in the film, which involve needle threads coming out of her mouth. Emily Alyn Lind plays Heidi Wyrick the young daughter of Lisa Wyrick, who starts to show signs of contacting the dead. She surprisingly holds her own as she plays one of the key roles in the film. All in all the performances were OK but their script lacked depth and charisma.

Director, Tom Elkins who is also the editor of this film and the first one, as well as the editor of a couple of other horror films, most notably the superior sequel to White Noise, White Noise 2: The Light. Tom seems like a gifted editor, but as a first time Director he has some learning to do as this horror film looks like it should be on ABC family. The just wasn't a solid direction to this film; its subject matter should have been more powerful. Writer David Coggeshall has only written for television shows before like the short lived Watch Over Me series. The elements of a good ghost story is there because of the true story aspect of the film, but David Coggeshall didn't put it into good use and created something uninspired and vague.

Overall, forget about the beginning of the movie's title and just go with Ghosts of Georgia because it's not a sequel to The Haunting in Connecticut, it's a completely different story. It was neat at the end credits to see a picture of the actual family on which this film is based on. Their true story is probably far more interesting and terrifying than the actual film being presented. The film had tiny moments of creepiness and intrigue with grotesque imagery but the pacing was slow, it was scare free for the most part, didn't take advantage of the back-story and was mostly an unoriginal affair. An unnecessary and pointless sequel that isn't really a sequel.

Lately I've been simply picking random horror movies of my preferred subgenres and diving into them if the trailer indicates it's not some cheap amateurish garbage, just to see if I wind up finding any diamonds in the rough. A Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia seemed adequate. Though I must say it's pretty funny that there's a movie with a very specific location in its title and keeping said title when its 'sequel' takes place in a completely different location with no relation to the first movie, but I digress. I was expecting a somewhat entertaining albeit mediocre film, but I actually ended up pretty impressed with the overall plot and the handling of it.

I think the major thing that hurt this movie was the editing; the effects and camera cuts used for instances such as when the characters are viewing the past vs the present were the exact caliber you would expect from a mediocre made-for-tv movie. There were also some things in the plot that didn't end up having much significance or used to the extent they ought to have, but I'm not a stickler for such things in horror movies unless they are glaringly apparent and significantly undercut the story we are meant to suspend our disbelief for.

Giving this movie a 5 makes it seem that despite my lack of lengthy criticism of it I thought it was terrible, so I feel the need to explain how I view horror. I can acknowledge that many are not "good" the same way you might describe a good movie from another genre, mainly because what constitutes a good horror movie seems to have such a broader range of subjectivity. My policy for checking whether a horror movie is good/at least decent on this website is whether or not its average rating is a 6 or higher. Therefore, when I watch a horror movie I think was pretty good I give it a 6 and consider it an endorsement-horror movies that are praised for being exceptional get judged with more conventional standards (i.e. Babadook, Hereditary, etc). I ramble about my rationale here just to emphasize that I'm not giving this movie a 5 because I think it's really mediocre; it gets a 5 because it's okay for what it is.