Post by Mr.HoRrOr on Feb 11, 2013 14:47:12 GMT -5
Plot:Indirect sequel to "The Haunting In Connecticut". In this follow-up, a young family’s nightmarish descent into a centuries-old Southern hell. When Andy Wyrick (Chad Michael Murray) moves his wife Lisa (Abigail Spencer) and daughter Heidi to an historic home in Georgia, they quickly discover they are not the house’s only inhabitants. Joined by Lisa’s free-spirited sister, Joyce (Katee Sackhoff), the family soon comes face-to-face with a bone-chilling mystery born of a deranged desire…a haunting secret rising from underground and threatening to bring down anyone in its path.
Cast:
Emily Alyn Lind
Chad Michael Murray
Katee Sackhoff
Abigail Spencer
Cicely Tyson
My Thoughts:OH MAN! Is that....is that a GHOST?!
Review:"The Haunting In Connecticut 2:Ghosts Of Georgia". Is the unrequited, and also unnecessary sequel, to "The Haunting In Connecticut". Apparently, the folks behind that film felt they didn't cash in enough. So, they decided to do a loose sequel. Which, well...that's showbiz folks! This movie stars Chad Michael Murray as a father who's just moved his family (wife and daughter) to a new property in Georgia.
They are soon joined by his wife's sister who just can't seem to get her act together. His wife has a "secret" though. One that soon ends up showing itself within his daughter. A secret which connects to, "the other side". I didn't hate this movie, but I didn't like it either. For one thing, the film rehashes old stuff that's been done already. The core reason for the haunting on this property, is Georgia's racist history involving slavery and such.
I think "Candyman" handled this aspect of American history better though. This film just uses it as a jumping off point for the mans daughters "ability". Where she is able to see ghosts. Apparently, her "powers" are a result of her mother's bloodline, which is shown in flashbacks where the daughter's mom can also see spirits. Including that of her own, deceased mother. So now daughter dearest has these abilities, and it may lead to unraveling the mystery of a man who was thought to be a helper and protector of escaped slaves in the old south.
The first movie, again...not connected to this one story wise, was way better. In my opinion. It was scary and chilling in "some" parts. A lot more sinister from a story point of view. And had a better chance at putting forth a real tale of terror, and "terrible things." "Ghosts Of Georgia" however, just seems to be another run-of-the-mill - straight-to-dvd - ghost flick. That could've been titled anything from "The Haunting In Connecticut 2", to "Haunted Heartland", to anything along those lines.
I just didn't see this movie as anything different from the supernatural horror films that show on on cable late some nights. And the only reason the "Haunting In Connecticut" moniker was attached, was to pique the curiosity of those who saw the first movie. Apparently, someone sees a lot of coin in blind rentals. But I was extremely bored with this movie. Every scene was like the scene that proceeded it. The daughter sees a ghost, then it vanishes.
Then later on there's another one, and then it vanishes. WTF? This is scary? This is terror? None of these ghosts were particularly terrifying, and the twist this movie puts forth near the finish is as predictable and foreshadowed as all get-out. The acting though does manage to hold up well enough to make the characters at least watchable. But replace Chad Michael Murray, and Katee Sackhoff, with whatever teen actor is "hot" right now? And then surround that actor with other "hot right now" kids? And the acting would've then suffered greatly.
But just because the film was casted well, doesn't give it any excuse for being just a sucky ghost movie. I was expecting them to go more "out there" with the content since this was "straight to dvd". And they had more wiggle room to use blood, gore, and graphic stuff because there wasn't some studio suit looming over them from standards and practices. But oddly enough, the sequel seemed even more afraid to get..."down and dirty" than the first movie! SHOCKING!
Everyone knows that when you're in straight-to-dvd territory, you have to BRING IT ON. In order to make it all worthwhile. "Ghosts Of Georgia" seemed scared to do so. And decided to become more dramatic and soap-opera-ish. So much in fact that at times, it forgets it's a horror movie. And when that happens, it tries to recaptured its genre appeal, by flashing a ghost or a shadow on the wall of these poor, unsuspecting folks crappy little shack house out in the middle of nowhere. And to be honest. if it were me. And my daughter were being negatively affected by "spooky ghosts" in my new home. I'd move! This house sucked. It was very shabby and old looking. And it was out in the middle of bleeping nowhere.
Hugh Hefner's mansion this place ain't! So when the family ignores the strange occurances because they don't wanna "sell the house". I say...WHY NOT? Oh, and...why'd you move into this dump in the first place?! And furthermore, why wasn't any part of this movie GENUINELY scary? I suspect if this film does well on DVD, there'll be a third one produced somewhere, somehow. That's usually how it goes. I just hope it's scarier than "Ghosts Of Georgia". A lackluster, and utterly forgettable trip down "undead memory lane".
THE GOOD:I can't think of a single good moment this movie had to offer. Seriously, I was bored from 20 minutes in. Till the final scene.
THE BAD:Are these ghosts, or are they pacifists? I assume because they were the ghosts of former slaves, they didn't want to make them aggressive. So as to play up the empathy card. Well, they should see a movie called "Tales From The Hood". Where one segment deals with the evils of slavery, and how it can come back to "bite" people. NOW THAT'S...how you handle a film about the spirits of former "opressed peoples".
OVERALL:One star out of four.