Ghosts of Georgia

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.

First off, let's just get something out of the way. "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" never had a chance to succeed. With a paradoxical title like that, audiences are given a red flag immediately. If the producers of a movie can't decide on a better name for a film, then how could they make bigger decisions during production? Just pick a name! Was "Ghosts of Georgia" any more generic than "The Haunting in Connecticut?" The reason I sound so frustrated is because it deserves better.

The Wyrick family moves into a country house in Georgia. Their daughter, Heidi, soon begins telling her parents she talks to a man who warns they're in danger. Upon investigating, they find out their house is located on land once owned by a stationmaster of the Underground Railroad. The souls of the slaves are restless and begin haunting the family for unknown reasons.

Director Tom Elkins and writer David Coggeshall put together quite an impressive ghost story with "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia." While "based on a true story," it's obvious some creative license is utilized to spice things up. However, there are some genuinely frightening moments that will resonate with viewers. Let's just say Elkins and Coggeshall know our innermost fears and exploits them.

The entire cast of "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" put forth their best efforts and embrace their individual characters. You can tell they took the material seriously and ran with it. Chad Michael Murray plays the father of the family. Abigail Spencer takes on the role of the mother. Katee Sackhoff portrays Spencer's free-spirited sister who comes to live with them. Emily Alyn Lind is perfect in as the little girl Heidi. She embraces the role straight-faced with an air of authentic innocence.

"The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" is a good supernatural tale that should have been released in theaters like its predecessor. There are nice twists to the story, the acting is good, and the scares are genuinely creepy. Maybe it's selfish, but I was looking forward to seeing the movie on a big screen in a quiet atmosphere where it could have my full attention. Seeing the movie at home will provide genre fans with a satisfying experience, too.

A young family moves into a historic home in Georgia, only to learn they are not the house's only inhabitants. When Andy Wyrick (Chad Michael Murray) moves his wife Lisa (Abigail Spencer) and daughter Heidi (Emily Alyn Lind) to a historic home in Georgia, they quickly discover they are not the house's only inhabitants . As the family suddenly finds at home emerging weird and bizarre ghosts .Joined by Lisa's free-spirited sister, Joyce (Katee Sackhoff) , the family soon comes face-to-face with a mystery born of a deranged desire . Soon they find themselves in the presence of a secret rising from underground and threatening to bring down anyone in its path . Now terror awaits while the little daughter communicates with the dead , returning to unleash horror on the innocent and unsuspecting family . They soon learn that their mysterious old house has a disturbing history : not only was the place where inconceivable acts occurred, and along the way a demonic messenger appears , providing a gateway for spiritual entities to crossover.... a haunting secret rising from underground and threatening to bring down anyone in its path.. The family soon comes face-to-face with a mystery born of a deranged desire ... a haunting secret rising from underground and threatening to bring down anyone in its path ! . Some things cannot be explained and they'll stop at nothing to get it ! .. What if the only explanation for what you saw was unbelievable? Fear the Demon that doesn't fear God !. Darkness lives inside. Pray for Her.

Based on a true story , it charts one family's encounter with a haunted house , but then things go wrong when the dark forces of the supernatural cropping up , as the family attempts to end the nightmarish curse and at whatever cost they try to free from the callous evil . Routine , typical horror movie about possession and haunted house with chills , thrills , plot twists and creepy events . This is the sequel to¨The Haunting in Connecticut¨ starred by Virginia Madsen ,Martin Donovan, Elias Koteas , Amanda Crew . Building on the terror of The Haunting in Connecticut , this tale traces a young family's nightmarish descent into a centuries-old Southern hell . Ordinary Exorcist movie style with usual ingredients as creepy appearances , possession , violent events , disgusting faces from the possessed people , grisly crimes and poltergeister phenomena . The plot is plain and simple, a family moves to a isolated mansion unware that inside there's a terrible and malicious curse, resulting in fateful consequences . Main and support cast are pretty well . As the mother finely interpreted by Abigail Spencer , the good father performed by Chad Michael Murray , Katee Sackhoff as the rebel sister , the brave little girl played by Emily Alyn Lind , the mysterious Mr. Gordy played Grant James , among others .

It displays a thrilling and suspenseful musical score by Michael Wandmacher . Likewise , appropriate and atmospheric, though very dark cinematography by cameraman Yaron Levi . The motion picture was professionally directed by Tom Elkins , though it has some flaws , shortfalls , and failures . This was his film debut , though he's a notorious editor who has edited various terror films, such as : Wrong Turn , Child's play , The Prodigy , Flatliners , Inferno , Annabelle , Haunt , The Apparition , The new daughter , Haunting in Connecticut , White noise 2. Rating : 6/10. Acceptable and passable horror movie.

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

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.