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.

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.

A small family moves into a home in Georgia only to discover they are not alone. Soon they realize that the house holds a mysterious past...

Although I do not understand the title or the need to call it a sequel I thought this movie was good. It offered a solid background story with outstanding acting. The movie starts well paced and keeps going until the end. The climax I found to be a bit outlandish but good and the ending offers a good resolution the story. The horror scenes are well placed and not overdone. The set ties in well with the story and the production quality is excellent. This film will satisfy the horror movie junkie and is well worth your time.

This movie has everything, amazing story, scary moments which anyone wants in Horror movie. It's comparable to Conjuring and Nun. It has more scary moments than both of them. Being a fan of Conjuring and Nun horror movies, whatever, I watched it won't satisfied my expectations as it's hard to find a decent horror movie with good storyline. Actually,all horror movies are same, the same haunted house story or a person being possessed. However, this story is so broad. It not only has several scary moments but also has some mysteries too. This is just wholesome, that's I really wanted in a horror movie. Perfection!!