Malédiction au Connecticut

It's a "Keeps you guessing while scared," kind of a movie. We really liked it.

A creepy film with enough jump scares to make it a great movie to watch on Halloween. Creepy, Creepy, Creepy, Creepy. Ok here is some more creepy, creepy, creepy.

I really did hesitate to see this movie because I had not seen many that have interested me since the days of Poltergeist - one exception being The Exorcism of Emily Rose. I loved both despite the obvious difference in style.

I found The Haunting In Connecticut disturbingly fun. It definitely had its own style which at times made me wonder when the signs of it bombing were going to appear. I think that was part of why I enjoyed it because it never did disappoint me. This mixture of reality and the supernatural kept me on the edge of my seat. Was it the trauma of cancer causing so much grief for this family or the chilling(yet burning), hidden secrets of the dead in this funeral home that kept expectations from settling on one aspect or the other? The fact is both were enough to draw attention away from the other while we try to make our own conclusions.

An innocent, everyday family deals with the possible, yet probable death of young Matt, who at times suffers excruciatingly from dealing with the unknown and death that he is convinced is his destiny. Squeezed between what is and may be real was enough, but then deal with the likes of a stranger who claims to be a reverend...c'mon, this is classic stuff. You can't take all this in without suffering a little, especially when the family itself starts to fall apart when they need to stick together.

While there are some questions that may not be answered, the story itself was more than satisfying. Special effects were kept to a minimum but used effectively and when needed. Acting was not Oscar worthy but good enough to make it all seem real. Fun when you want it and scary when you need it.

It's definitely a 7/10

Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner) has a terminal cancer and is submitted to an experimental treatment in the St. Michael's Hospital Goatswood in Connecticut. The responsible for the trial, Dr. Brooks (D.W. Brown), advises that if Matt starts seeing things, he should drop the experiment. His religious mother Sara (Virginia Madsen) drives almost eight hours with her son since he has nausea and needs to vomit during the travel. She proposes her husband Peter (Martin Donovan), who had trouble with booze, to rent a house in Connecticut to be close to the hospital despite their second mortgage. Sara finds an old house with an affordable price and she questions the catch to the owner and he explains that the house has a history, since it was a funeral home in the past. Sara hides the truth from Peter and the family moves to the house. While in the treatment, Matt befriends Reverend Popescu (Elias Koteas), who has also cancer. When Matt has weird visions and nightmares from the past, he calls Popescu that tells him that an evil entity is trapped in the house and they are able to see him because they are in the borderline of the worlds of the living and the dead.

"The Haunting in Connecticut" is an above average movie of haunted house since it blends a very well developed family drama with spooky scenes of a ghost story. There are many realist situations like the bad financial situation of the Campbells that are usually forgotten in American movies. Further, there is a beautiful message of faith, and Sara truly believes that God works in a mysterious way. The drinking problem of Peter and how it affected the relationship with Sara is just glanced and could be better explored. I do not like the sensationalism that highlights on the cover of the DVD that the story is based on a true event since this movie is better than that. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Evocando Espíritos" ("Evoking Spirits")

Basically this movie is like a more gruesome haunted house tale than the original Amityville or a less gruesome haunted house tale than the Amityville remake. However, the movie most certainly follows the flow of those two movies. I would have actually given this movie a six, but they kept trying to make out like this story was pure fact and that rather ticked me off, I mean what do they take me for a moron. I know a bit about the story it is taken from and there are so many differences it is pathetic. I realize that you have to add some stuff or the movie is going to be kind of boring, heck I am even for embellishing the story to the degree this one did, but do not have the this serious voice over telling me how this is true and have the writing at the end tell an out right lie. So what is the story you ask? Well a teenage boy has cancer and his mother is having to drive him a great distance quite often for a special treatment. Mother decides to find a place to rent closer to the place the son gets treatments so he does not have to endure the long drive in pain and vomiting. Of course, the family's financial situation is not to good so when the house with the history comes up for rent you know our family is going to make that their new stomping ground. So spooky reflections and such start to take place as well as strange visions and we even have a reverend enter the picture to give our youth guidance. So yes, the typical haunted house formula is here. Add in a pointless stretch of film where the father drinks and you have your movie, though I am betting that part of the film is actually true, but they changed so much around why not just omit that part all together as it really did not bring anything to the film. So I say add some more scares, perhaps a little gore, do not try to pass off the movie as being a reenactment or something and this film might have been really good...just like a lot of horror movies it is usually might have is it not?