The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia (2013) User Reviews

Good film!

[sal10851 · 6/10 · 21 July 2013]

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.

Sometimes decent but mostly bland and uninspired non sequel

[mdnobles19 · 5/10 · 2 February 2013]

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.

Above-Average for a Direct-to-VOD Horror Movie Sequel to an Average Horror Movie

[BobbyGuerrieri · 6/10 · 1 February 2013]

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

The absolute lowest

[roccajunior · 1/10 · 10 February 2013]

Here's a novel idea something supernatural in which a character has a gift of seeing phenomena. Even better let's make the character a woman. Let's go one step further and make it a kid. How about all the women in the family have it? Then whack that story over the one about a house that you shouldn't be able to afford, a stubborn denial that anything is wrong even in the face of numerous sightings and abductions of your own child and you will just about be at the level of this film. The makers of this need to take a long look at themselves as does the person who has marked it ten out of ten. Utter garbage. The finale is some sort of house by the cemetery rip off. I wish I had spent the time that I spent watching this burning my eyes out with hot pokers so this sort of trash could not infect my person ever again.

Doesn't deserve such a low rating

[bellapeligrosa · 7/10 · 18 March 2013]

This is loosely based on real events, which doesn't help explain the completely absurd title. Research into the Wyrick hauntings won't ruin the film for you however as the only comparison to recorded events are the names of the characters.

As with any horror movie these days there are plenty of stock thrills: ghosts in white dresses, waking from a dream to find you are still in a dream, swings that move by themselves etc. The best thing about this film is that the characters are quite likable and you do become invested in their welfare. There's enough twists and turns to keep you guessing at the real nature of the evil. The breakout star is Emily Alyn Lind, who is so adorable that you want to reach into the movie and rescue her yourself, her plight not helped by her somewhat inconscient father who encourages her friendship with an old dead guy if it means directions to hidden treasure. His commitment to his daughter is only outweighed by his commitment to their hapless rescue dog.

The two female leads are nicely balanced. All the women in this 'see dead people', and it's how they handle it that is the crux of the film, their conflicting reactions and opinions driving the plot forward as the truth is revealed. This is obviously low budget, shots of the forest using various filters providing the atmosphere, the gore is minimal and the special effects fairly low key, but enough here to give you a tingle, even if it's only the fact that Mr Gordy really did appear to Heidi and he gets his photo in the end credits.

At least make it PARTLY true!!!

[trentsmith09 · 1/10 · 23 April 2013]

The movie was 95% fictional crap, and the other five percent would only go to the fact that they spelled the real characters names right! I've seen the actual original interview/depiction on the "A Haunting" T.V. series, and although the main ghost was true, the rest of the story line was complete BULL!!! They could have just as easily made it exactly like how the show portrayed it, and would still would have been just as good...much like how they kept the story line somewhat intact with "The Haunting in Connecticut", where it was more on the lines of being 25%-30% fictional. I would have respected the movie more if they would have said, "Loosely based on some actual events"!!! SAD...SMH@the film industry!!!

Good Movie with a Bad Title

[knightox · 7/10 · 27 October 2019]

This was actually an entertaining supernatural movie. I do have one problem though, the name of it. Why would they even bother mentioning "Connecticut" in the title when all the paranormal action occurs in Georgia? It's not like it's a true sequel or really has anything to do with the first movie. In fact I believe if they had marketed this film simply under "Ghosts of Georgia" or maybe "Lost Souls of Georgia" it would've done remarkably better in the box office, especially if shown in theaters. Based loosely of a true story, the storyline follows the Wyrick family as they move into an old deep, backwoods property in Georgia. It turns out the land once served as a station for the Underground Railroad before the Civil War. The man who ran it was called the "Station Master", he was a taxidermist named Gordy. History saw him as a hero who helped escaped slaves. However Taxidermist Gordy had a darker truth about him. Flash forward to the present and the Wyricks' daughter, Heidi, begins to see visions of Taxidermist Gordy's great, grand son (we'll call "Mr. Gordy") who past away in the 1970's. Turns out Mr. Gordy held the note on the Wyrick's place till the bank got it in the 70's. Mr. Gordy continues to appear to Heidi telling her things, like where to find buried money in the yard and about certain dangers looming. Heidi's mom Lisa has trouble with her daughter seeing supernatural things which is kind of odd since Lisa herself is a cursed medium who constantly takes medication to deal with seeing grotesque paranormal visions everyday. Lisa's sister Joyce (Katee Sackhoff) later explains to Heidi that her ability to see extraordinary things is an inherited trait in her family. After that the movie pretty much takes off and the family goes through HELL!!! I won't give away anymore spoilers but leave it to say it's definitely worth a watch. They really ought to rename it though.

This is not a horror movie ..

[triki · 2/10 · 6 February 2013]

Maybe kids could get shaken up a bit by those ugly faces , i hate it when everyone is alone .. i hate stupid scenarios. the movie doesn't deserve a 4/10 . normally good parents would let their kids sleep in their room if something bad is happening around , but no the kid always sleeps alone and the window is always open. the distance between the car and home is somewhere between 30 mn to 1 hr on foot ... every time the man leaves someone behind and asks not to move ill be back ..wtf !!! are you kidding me plz don't watch this movie coz its a shame for horror. and what about those visions .... 3 girls 2 adults and a girl seeing visions 24/7. vision here vision there ???? wouldn't it be easier if they just suicide and relieve themselves from misery ??? the police discovers that ruins and they don't find that secret door , until the mom comes at the end of the movie to kick some wood and find another secret inside secret ruins !!!! did the police just take pictures of the place without further investigations ???? woow i hate you all of you stupid directors stupid actors :(

Frightening Ghost Story

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 4 August 2013]

In 1993, the Wyrick family moves to an affordable real estate in the countryside of Pine Mountain, Georgia. Lisa (Abigail Spencer) is a medium that uses pills to avoid seeing dead people; her husband Andy (Chad Michael Murray) is a ranger and their little daughter Heidi (Emily Alyn Lind) has inherited the gift of her mother. Soon Lisa's sister, Joyce (Katee Sackhoff), who is a free-spirited and reckless woman, asks to stay in a trailer in property and Lisa and Chad agree. .

When Heidi befriends and old man named Mr. Gordy (Grant James), her parents believe that he is an imaginary friend but Joyce discovers that he was the owner of the land until his death in the 70's. Further, they discover that the land belonged to a stationmaster that protected slaves in the Nineteenth Century. Heidi insists that Mr. Gordy has told her that they are in danger and the family discovers that an evil spirit is trapped in the land. Will they survive?

"The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" is a frightening ghost story with good story and performances. This movie is not a sequel of the scary "The Haunting in Connecticut" and I have startled many times while watching to this movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Evocando Espíritos 2" ("Evoking Spirits 2")

The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia

[Scarecrow-88 · 2/10 · 19 August 2015]

Groan. Here's another yawner with so many loud bangs and "this is the time to freak out or jump" cues (the soundtrack is quite noisy and never- ending), it doesn't have time to breathe. Slaves were supposedly rescued by a stationmaster considered a hero in Southern history, but the film points out how this wasn't the case. A taxidermist by trade, it was told down through generations he helped provide refuge and escape for slaves, only with help by a ghost named Mr. Gordy (talking to a child, the daughter of lead Abigail Spencer) do we learn the real truth. An ancestor of Mr. Gordy, the stationmaster did some horrible misdeeds with his taxidermy skills. With Chad Michael Murray (of One Tree Hill) as Spencer's husband (he's all complacent and okay with his daughter's talking to Mr. Gordy, for whom she's the only one who sees him) and the sexy-as-hell Katee Sackoff as Spencer's sister (escaping bad relationships with men and sober from the drink) in the cast, all eventually dealing with the ghosts of the slaves of Pine Mountain and the evil spirit of the stationmaster, with frequent visits to a well where a special hidden room reveals some unpleasant examples of taxidermy in secret.

Cicely Tyson is made up to almost resemble a corpse, her eyes discolored and for whatever reason she has horse teeth in her mouth. I was clueless as to why she's made up this way. Her character had relatives that vanished and were never seen again; later, the film shows us where they've been "kept" for quite some time. This is one of those unnecessary characters that knows a child knows. It is like that scene in The Shining when Scatman Crothers addresses "the shine" with Danny Lloyd in the kitchen; Tyson seems to know that the little girl has the ability to see what many others can't. It is basically what Sackoff told the child earlier, but Spencer tries to fend off their embracing of this gift.

The film commits fully to "ghost fades" and constant appearances of apparitions popping up practically in every damn scene! Sackoff deserves better than to be lying on the floor with thread strings protruding from her mouth, needled to the roof of an abandoned trailer. Surprising to see a talent like Spencer in something abysmal as this "depiction of a true story". She sees her dead mother and has a "gift" where dead people are visible to her (as they are for the kid and Sackoff) all the time, as pills seem to help very little. Chad just kind of goes with the flow, not all that concerned that the women in his life see dead people. It is all nonchalant and meh to him, although he does rise to the occasion when his daughter's life is in jeopardy. There is a Baptist version of an exorcism (obviously there's *got* to be an exorcism, right?) that does little to help stop the ghosts from hanging around. You do get to see the child finally receive help riding her bike as Mr. Gordy gives her a push. Yeah. And what's up with that title? Sheesh. Why tie yourself to an even worse ghost film? The direction is too busy with all the ghostly visits and warnings of the boogeyman to tell a story in a way that feels like editing ADHD style.

You get near drowning in a bathtub, puked out maggots and roaches, rotted corpses, sack-head racists performing taxidermy on a taxidermist, slave corpses in a well, slave ghosts leading a way to their current resting place, a ghoul whose hideous face is stitched to a potato sack, and numerous spectres unafraid to hide themselves. This is a lot of effects, both in what you see and hear, but it is all tiresome instead of scary.

"The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" is a satisfying supernatural tale with some genuinely frightening moments

[ersinkdotcom · 8/10 · 26 April 2013]

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.

much better than the first!!

[bdonnlis · 7/10 · 21 April 2013]

I was hesitant renting this movie tonight but I absolutely loved it! The storyline was cool and historic and scary and also had a sweet ending I loved the fact gordy turned out to be the good guy!! It was pretty suspenseful at times and I liked the historic feel to it!!! It was also very interesting that the women in the family have special gifts The women in my family also have similar qualities so I really liked that

Only thing that kinda got on my nerves was the fake Georgia accents!!! I also was not a big fan of Joyce she was more annoying than I felt she needed to be!!

I loved the fact this is tied to real life events those are always cool! Go gordy! Free the slaves!!!! 7/10

The Wyrick story as reported on Unsolved Mysteries and A Haunting is much better than this garbage. AVOID.

[iamnotallthere · 3/10 · 17 February 2013]

I have been a big fan of the Wyrick story ever since I first saw the Unsolved Mysteries episode with them back in the mid nineties. Who wouldn't love a story about a little girl that sees ghosts? I loved the story because it in and of itself was scary. Mr. Gordy, Khan (Lon), The faceless hooded figure were all creepy and made for an entertaining story. Then when A Haunting did their movie about the family in the early 00's I loved finding out more about the story. Jordan talking to little girl ghosts, Heidi continuing to see the hooded figure, the terror they felt was all compelling. This iteration of the story is just nonsensical, nothing from what I have heard, read, or seen about the family and their trials had ANYTHING to do with the underground railroad. Even the interview I heard with them on Darkness on the Edge of Town made no mention of the events in this film. It is 90% fiction and the scares they try to sell you are cheap in comparison to what you could get if you watched the Haunting film on the same topic. This is just another case of Hollywood making a movie and fictionalizing a reportedly true story, watering it down or altering it so it bears no resemblance to the one that the fans (like me) sincerely love. Just like The Haunting in Connecticut I found this to be almost laughable.

Terrible, terrible, terrible.

[LisaFace · 1/10 · 21 August 2014]

Firstly, why this is called The Haunting in Connecticut 2 is a mystery as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the first movie.

If you want a scary ghost story, steer well clear of this mess. A ghost pops up within about 2 mins of the opening and then throughout the entire film....constant....relentless flickering ghosts, shot for some reason in sepia. It wasn't enough to have one person who can see these "ghosts" either. No, we are treated to all three lead female characters having persistent visions for the entire 1hr 40mins.

To claim this is based on a true story is almost insulting. To start with the "true" Wyrick story is a typical kid sees ghost affair, not particularly chilling (or true for that matter). By the end of this film it's nothing more than a ridiculous monster flick, with the character played by Abigail Spencer running and squealing around a standard creepy cellar filled with (shock horror) all manner of taxidermy and about 20 ghosts in tow.

The concept of the underground slave railroad run by the evil taxidermist station master is a baffling plot line, which completely ruined the film. God knows what they were thinking.

The acting from the little girl, Emily Alyn Lind is about the only redeeming feature. Chad Michael Murray was completely pointless, giving an unconvincing and lacklustre performance. The rest of the cast were okay, nothing spectacular, and of course 90% of the cast were mute ghostly types who just stand about in corners, looking over people's shoulders with a pained expression, and pointing into the woods.

AVOID.

Not bad,let just say good Horror!!!

[Foxhell · 6/10 · 3 February 2013]

Well as i Watch this movie,i actually enjoy acting was pretty good, especially Emily Alyn Lind & Chad Michael Murray,there was one thing if it wasn't about true story, audience love to see in this movie Chad Michael Murray as Lead role instead of Abigail Spencer, because she certainly couldn't handle her role as good as she should have,in fact Katee Sackhoff had rare appearance but she done really good job in her role. I think many people wanna skip Abigail scene in this movie,like i wanted but i did cause i didn't wanna miss the story. LOL Above all movie is watchable,good story, continuity was great, beside Abigail everything and everyone was just fine.

Why Pay For This Movie When You Can See It For Free on YouTube?

[dannybalberjr · 4/10 · 11 February 2013]

I'm not really sure why they called this movie The Haunting in Connecticut 2 when all of it takes place in Georgia, other than to tie it to the equally not scary The Haunting In Connecticut from a few years back, but my best advise is to pass on this one until you can see it for free on cable because you will get more scares out of this story on cable on Destination America. We were pleasantly surprised when this story began and the little girl started talking about seeing a Mr. Gordy and realized that this story was based on a haunted house story we saw on the Destination America series A Haunting. Sorry to report, the episode on A Haunting is twice as scary as this clunker with probably a tenth of the effects budget. Abigail Spencer is pretty good as the mom who sees dead people and it's good to see Katee "Starbuck" Sackhoff in something other than Battlestar Gallactica, but this movie generates almost no scares and builds virtually no tension. And once you get to the meat of the back story and it tries to get all serious, you're just left with little to be afraid of. So take a pass and check out A Haunting for more frights and a much more realistic story.

My Review Of "Ghosts Of Georgia"

[ASouthernHorrorFan · 6/10 · 14 February 2013]

"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".

Not that bad, but not at all good. In comparison to the prequel - lacking.

[nitzanhavoc · 4/10 · 31 March 2013]

As a devout Horror fan, I tend to write reviews for the Horror films I watch. As one with a special liking to the Ghost Story sub-genre, I'm always glad to watch such films. And as a fan of the original The Haunting in Connecticut - I'm a little disappointed (was going to say very disappointed, then decided to at least attempt to remain impartial).

On it's own, I guess the build-up is quite OK. A special gift that runs in the family, one which allows communication with ghosts. In comparison to the prequel - lacking. The story is also not too bad, with an interesting twist. In comparison to the prequel - lacking. Even annoying. Feels like half the film is scenes of the family running around screaming "HEIDI!!!!!" trying to find the girl, who is only found to get lost again.

Sound effects, cinematography and acting are all actually good and very suitable for a Ghost-Story. I feel the story simply wan't compelling and not that interesting, and in comparison to the prequel - guess what.

All in all? lacking. Watchable, but only with very lowered expectations. I'll allow myself the privilege of rating this subjectively based on my personal experience, and give this a 4.

You will despise the name "Heidi" after this movie

[jackmeat · 14 April 2013]

Movie review: OK, we can get this out of the way and move on. Capitalizing on the name of the first one that had marginal success doesn't save this movie from obscurity. This has nothing to do with New England at all, just a blatant attempt at making money off the name. Shame on Hollywood. OK, movie, family moves into a haunted house (really haunted by the number of ghosts that are seen) and the usual plot ensues. The writers busted out the book of clichés that every haunted house movie contains. So, of course, the mother (Abigail Spencer) can see dead people and they are pretty much everywhere. He daughter also apparently has this ability as well, speaking with a Mr. Gordy throughout the movie. Problem is this movie plods along through all the plot and throws in a few scares to keep the viewer happy (or bored, take your pick). Well, all of a sudden, the movie tries to get all serious on you, but by this point, it is far to late. I have to say the acting was done well enough to make you actually care about the family, so at least they took the time to develop the characters which is a plus. The daughter(Emily Alyn Lind) is adorable but mark my words, if you watch this from beginning to end, you WILL despise the name "Heidi", it is only yelled about 500 times in this movie. The F/X and cgi are horrendous to the point of laughable and a complete distraction to the story that is trying to be told. The based on a true story thing (hype) is so far fetched to reach connecting this movie to the Wyrick haunting is also laughable. If you liked the first one, you may get something out of this, maybe. I found this to be more or less how to "piss off the audience" and the writers said "let's start with the movie title, and leave everyone wondering why the movie takes place in Georgia exclusively". Fun fact, the movie was filmed in New Orleans, so they couldn't even do justice to Georgia either. 3.7/10 IMDb 4.8 ?

Not quality horror but a surprisingly good movie!

[HottieLoves23 · 7/10 · 19 March 2013]

Horror films are a touchy subject for me, some I like and some I just cannot deal with. Upon seeing the poster for this movie I though, "Nope, not gonna see that!" It really freaked me out. The conflicting locations in the movies title made me think the movie would be a total flop. So, since I didn't think this movie would be one that I would like - let alone actually good - I'll admit, the only reason I gave this movie a chance is because Chad Michael Murray's in it. After reading summaries for the movie and watching the trailer I gathered that it had to do with the underground railroad, and being a history buff, I decided I had to give the movie a try.

The movie was spooky with little flecks of terror here and there. The acting was very well done but the story was lacking - the movie was pretty much spitting out information and trying to make it scary. How the movie wrapped up was almost...sweet. At the end I almost felt like I watched a rough draft of a great film.

Even though the movie seemed lacking I thought it was very good and it game me just the right amount of scare.

Heidi Heidi Heidi Heidi Heidi Heidi Heidi Heidi.................

[Schuriken · 4/10 · 19 February 2013]

This movie is so overwhelmed with so many ghosts that it becomes quite boring to the viewer, pretty fast.

No original stuff to be found here just another psychic family who sees ghosts all over the place in a hunted property...wow that's really amazing...

Note that there are cgi scary faces that are quite funny. Completely destroyed the film with that lame youtube scary project like scenes.

And what's with that Heidi Heidi Heidi screaming mother from the start to finish...really annoying, the guy who wrote this script must have been drunk or stupid to keep repeating that name over and over and over again.

I did not enjoy this film not one bit. There's nothing there to enjoy anyways. Horrible photography, crappy cgi and the special fx are very, very lame.

The funniest thing on this movie is at the end where we see a photo of the real people who stayed in that house. They are all so fat and ugly and the actors who played them look like models and very skinny indeed....couldn't the casting crew be a little bit more faithful to the image of the real people ? I mean c'mon, you don't have to cast nice looking actors for a "horror" movie.

Do not spend your money on part 2 or 3 or 4...

Wow, this is terrifying

[Misss25 · 8/10 · 25 August 2022]

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!!

really good haunting story

[atinder · 7/10 · 5 February 2013]

I really liked this movie, I found this movie a lot more creepier then first movie,

There was some really good scare scenes in this movie that last long then one Second, there not there just to make you jump.

There some really strange effect in this movie, which I am not sure what to think of at the moment.

Actually liked the fact this movie dose focus on, the same old route, Kid seeing a strange things,

most of people in the movie see thinks, I liked the fact they do believe way before the end, which I think was nice change.

I liked how the plot came to end was really good, there were really good tense moment in this movie.

The ending was fitting end, Nice and sweet ending to this movie.

The acting from everyone in cast was really good and the some of effect were really good in this movie.

A lot better then I thought it would be,

I going to give this sequel 7/8 out of 10

Shame on Lionsgate / Gold Circle / Wyrick Family

[giarmomatthew · 1/10 · 25 April 2013]

This is not the first time the Wyrick story has been brought to mass audiences. The ghost story shared a three-part episode of Unsolved Mysteries in February 1989 and Virginia-based New Dominion Pictures added its 94-minute IMDb viewer-rated 6.4 version in 2002. Both accounts made an effort to respect the source material in delivering an atmospheric ghost story with an overtone of the grave. So with that in mind, my question for the Wyrick family is as follows ...

Why have you not denounced this Hollywood boondoggle as a farce? How can you let Lionsgate / Gold Circle and its goofy screenwriter David Coggeshall claim that the film is "based on a true story?" How can you let them display photos of your family at the conclusion of the "film"? I would identify all the ways the film deviated from the real story, but it seems absurd to mention Lisa Wyrick's ability to see dead people (she has none) in the same paragraph as a resurrected taxidermist who lured runaway slaves into his dungeon masquerading as a station point for the Underground Railroad. The real Wyrick story is in no way rumored to be connected to the Underground Railroad. But hey, the crawl spaces in the Snedecker home (A Haunting in Connecticut) were not stuffed to the gills with corpses either.

How can anyone claim to like this albatross? Seriously. A corpse (or ghost of a corpse) abducting and assaulting the living? This is no longer the Wyrick story. This is no longer a GHOST story. This is now Creature from the Black Lagoon.

I would have laughed at all the liberties taken with this story if something vital wasn't truly lost to these disrespectful clowns at Lionsgate / Gold Circle. There is evil about this Lionsgate story, but its the ticketmaster and not some fabricated station master at the root of it. Evidence of ghosts is hard enough to come by that when we do encounter compelling stories with certain kinds of validity, we need to preserve their integrity -- not use them as the jumping off point for some wildly fantastical nonsense designed to heat some pools in Tinseltown. Make no mistake -- hack horror writer David Coggeshall took a ghost story that received significant attention from world renown scientific investigators and turned it into The Evil Dead. There's a special place in hell for people like him (probably the same level where Woody Allen put the inventor of aluminum siding in Deconstructing Harry).

And if the hack job wasn't enough, the film did not even deliver scares. How much elegance -- how much high art -- can we expect from a film given the most clumsy title in Hollywood history? Usually when you decide to contort yourself in whatever way is necessary to piggyback off another film, it's usually a critically acclaimed or commercially successful film. A Haunting in Connecticut was neither. In fact, a documentary film company from Suffolk, Virginia is more celebrated for its version of the Connecticut ghost story than the Lionsgate Hollywood studio. Ghosts of Georgia is as connected to A Haunting in Connecticut as the 2002 academy award-winning Chicago was to Woody Allen's Manhattan.

And this was no joy to watch. It was made tedious by the constant labored efforts to tickle our startle reflex -- efforts that are purely mechanical in nature (the images themselves were not interesting or scary). We're treated to our first CGI-generated apparition just 10 seconds into the film and from there it's non-stop ghosts. How a film manages to turn a phenomenon as exotic and controversial as ghosts into common termites is beyond me.

Anyway congratulations on the paycheck. Horror films like this are relatively inexpensive to make nowadays and the profit margin must have good even after coaxing just a few million at the low end of the IQ scale into the theaters. And from what I understand, Gold Circle is set to destroy yet another New Dominion psychodrama titled "The Diabolical," which will be renamed A Haunting in New York.

an extended paranormal reality show episode

[cornflakeboy20 · 4/10 · 5 February 2013]

Let me begin by saying this is the worst horror title since "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer."

In this "true story," two psychic sisters and a psychic girl (in the sense that they see ghosts) relocate (not from Connecticut) to a former Georgia plantation with one sister's redneck husband, who is some sort of police officer/security guard. Each of the women begin having visions of ghosts, presented in the typical paranormal reality show manner (black and white, slow motion, fast motion, random shots of insects, shots of mouths agape). The girl's mother, for a woman who sees ghosts, is at first surprisingly hostile to her daughter's notions that there is an invisible man living on the property.

The property turns out to have been an underground railway station run by a morally dubious station agent/taxidermist, and as anybody knows all taxidermists are evil. The townspeople, including the pastor, are well aware of the property's history, but in spite of the South's obsession with this time period and the fact that the lot was abandoned for twenty years, no one has excavated or explored the property or hauled off its historic artifacts. The ghosts attempt to communicate a dastardly secret to the girl, and this inspires the zombie/poltergeist/demon (?) station agent to emerge from hiding and wreak havoc in his underground chamber, which was lying in plain sight waiting to be found.

This has some promise as a ghost story, but could have been condensed into a half hour reality show, using the same shots and techniques (meaningless dates are presented to lend accuracy, just like in the shows). The acting is a bit forced, especially the accents, and Chad Michael Murray's attempt to butch it up as a backwoods redneck. Clichés abound: as all haunted house families, there is a piano that is only played by ghosts, meaningful stuffed animals and dolls, Victorians, a preference for baths over showers, a preference for long, flowing robes among the women. Some of the most realistic elements of the story are the most far-fetched. I've already mentioned the historical artifacts waiting to be found, but the redneck father seems far more a danger than the station agent when he tears out of his house with a gun tracking his daughter, or drives crazily through the woods in the dark without looking behind him.

The ending has clearly been exaggerated, and we are left to wonder how much has been a hallucination, especially since the mother was already revealed to be on medication for mental illness (or accurate ghost visions, if you prefer). Apparently the real family left the property a few years after the events here, I wonder why they didn't use the ghost story and the historical monuments to build tourist attraction.