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

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!!!

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" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Surprisingly Great Flick!

[travishanson1017 · 6/10 · 20 March 2013]

First of all... Watched this out of boredom planned on doing Homework while watching it and I stopped my homework and got into it! I don't understand why it got such a terrible rating! It wasn't A-list actors but they did a well enough job and were very likable and irritating.. in their character.

This movie was in your face from the very beginning to the very end. Not gory and bloody, a well written film that could of been touched up a bit more. Like a well written Rough Draft.

I Loved the ending i felt almost touched... felt compassion for those who lost their lives on their property and the love and compassion of family and humanity in all!

Deeply surprised at this film it was better than sinister and Mama in my opinion. 6.5/10

Horror chiller about a young family moves into a haunted house in Georgia resulting in frightening and horrible consequences .

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 27 February 2022]

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.

Not Again!

[ga_rascal01 · 1/10 · 21 February 2013]

It seems the unholy, crappy trinity is now complete; The Amityville Horror, The Haunting in Connecticut and now the Haunting in Connecticut 2 Ghosts of Georgia. Right off the bat, what the hell does Connecticut have to do with Georgia Ghosts, because other than the title and quite possibly some of the original investigators resided in Connecticut this case had nothing to do with the New England state.

Then just as it was done with the previous aforementioned movie titles, this movie was fiction except with the insertion of the Wyrick haunting details. So if you are a paranormal fan, do not except to learn the exact details of this now famous (or infamous) haunting. The same thing was done to the Haunting in Connecticut, using just enough true information to legally label it with based on a true story. Something tells me the young man plagued in the first movie did not cough up a mega-sized booger.

Once again Hollywood and it's cronies have ripped apart the truth about these cases for the collection of revenue. Bad, bad Hollywood.

Not as Bad as the Title Would Suggest

[3xHCCH · 6/10 · 24 April 2013]

First, the awful title. What kind of title is that? "Haunting in Connecticut 2", then followed by "Ghosts of Georgia". I don't think ghosts can bi-locate that far can they? Turns out it has nothing to do with Connecticut at all. They just wanted to ride on the true story theme of the first one, with the true story of this new film. Honestly, I did not think that was necessary. It just confused the audience, making people expect a totally B horror film.

That is unfortunate because the film was not bad at all. At first, this was a little run of the mill, a young family moves into a spooky looking house in the countryside. The mom Lisa, her sister Joyce, and the young daughter Heidi all can see ghosts. It turns out the house was part of the Underground Railroad during the 1800s, where someone called the Stationmaster (whose hobby was taxidermy) was supposed to have helped a good number of slaves escape. However, why are the spirits becoming increasingly violent?

The imagery of the ghosts was grotesquely good and scary. There was so skimping on disgusting crawling bugs. The taxidermy turned out to be more than just a trivial detail of the background story. One of the major scare scenes involves taxidermy needle and thread, and that was one crazy scene. OK, there were a lot of old horror flick clichés too, like sudden swells of music, people who did not want to leave despite the obvious dangers.

The acting was not bad for badly-written characters. At least we saw what Chad Michael Murray is up to now after what seemed to be a promising start in his career. The ladies who played the sisters Lisa and Joyce played it up to par. The true star here is little Emily Alyn Lind, who played Heidi. She has the charm of "Firestarter"-age Drew Barrymore here. I hope she did not have nightmares or lifelong psych trauma while shooting this film. She looked genuinely shook up in some scenes. Very realistic acting for this talented little girl, I must say.

Overall, I felt this was a pretty good horror film. Creepy enough atmosphere, special effects, ghost make-up to give good scares. The historical back story also contributes to the depth of the film as a whole. I certainly do not consider this movie a waste of time as others here would label it.

My review

[alice-monaghan3 · 4/10 · 1 February 2014]

I watched this film shortly after watching the first one, obviously it is clear the films have no relevance to one another which kind of annoys me as then why label a film as something 2 when it isn't even remotely similar to the original. Anyway despite this , the movie could of been a good movie off its own back without being attached to the original movie perhaps just called the ghosts of Georgia. It did make me jump was very jumpy in places, one of the better story lines. However the little girls acting was better than anyone else. Although no one can ever explain that they get to look at chad Michael Murray for over an hour, that's certainly enjoyable.

My first review, for a good reason!

[wilhanluciano · 8/10 · 28 July 2013]

It's the very first time that a movie makes me want to write a review. For the beginning, the cast was a perfect match, they were flawless for a horror movie, not too bad-ass neither too dumb-bass.

I wasn't expect much thing after read the plot, but guess what! I was wrong, The Haunting in Connecticut 2 brings a solid plot about ghosts that in the end appeals for an emotional scene that is awesome. If you are looking for gore, blood and extreme horrifying things this one is not for you

I don't know why low rating, but I think it is because the first movie wasn't so good as this one and everyone expected the worst.

If you don't want a blockbuster movie with a remade and same history give it a try.

PS: My review is most directly to people who are involved with horror movies and enjoy all kinds in the genre

messy

[phenomynouss · 6/10 · 15 August 2021]

I didn't see until the end that this was based on a supposedly true story but given how movies tend to be with regards to "true" stories, I feel that the story here could have done with a lot more looseness in the story, or if a lot of liberties were taken, then less looseness.

Because the end result of a mess. If I were to learn that a multitude of different and potentially conflicting plotlines and story ideas went into the final product, all edited to fit together, I would believe it. There's way too many plot elements going on that keep bending in a way suggesting some manner of twist one way or another that end up either not twisting at all or not being important at all.

To start, the story involves the Wyrick family, Lisa, Andy, and daughter Heidi moving to an old house in rural Georgia. Deadbeat sister Joyce drops in and we soon learn that Lisa, Joyce, and now Heidi have magic psychic ghost-communicating powers that seems to run matrilineally in their family. Lisa is taking pills for schizophrenia while Joyce is the more open one about it.

Heidi keeps seeing a ghost of an old man called Mr. Gordy. Eventually they learn Mr. Gordy was the last owner of the house before he died in the 1970s and a local bank took hold of the house until this family bought it.

On top of that, Mr. Gordy's grandfather, when he owned the house, was a station master as part of the underground railroad. Apparently a very prominent one because the house and its hiding places for runaway slaves have become almost a tourist attraction for local residents and descendants of runaway slaves.

So none of this explains why Heidi is seeing the ghost of Mr. Gordy or why there appear to be other random spookies happening not just to her but to Lisa as well. At this point, the film starts to become a grab-bag of half-baked ideas that are all touched upon very gently and dropped before they can start making no sense.

At one point, we're teased with the possibility of Heidi being possessed by some ghost or something in a rather long-winded "not an exorcism" type religious sequence. This goes nowhere.

Mr. Gordy is described as being an odd, possibly bad fellow. This goes nowhere.

Station Master Gordy was killed by some of his neighbors, all wearing white hoods. Was he discovered? Was his killing racially motivated? This would seem to be clear cut, but the ending throws that into question as well.

Station Master Gordy was a taxidermist and left traps in the woods to catch animals he would later stuff. The way this information gets put in the film it almost immediately leads you into some sneaking suspicion about one or more of the ghostly events taking place, but the movie seemingly forgets about this, or else had some other content cut out, because it begins a slow, dumb build-up to a SHOCKING REVELATION that was already discovered almost half an hour previously.

A whole lot of the backstory elements are framed in such a way that they fit together in one way, only for the film to break them apart in a different way that makes less sense than the initial story.

To demonstrate this in a non-spoiler way; Imagine I buy a horse from someone, bring it to my ranch, then die of a heart attack and the horse is left without care and starves to death. Without knowing anything about me beforehand, Is it more reasonable to believe the horse starved to death because I died of a heart attack, or is it reasonable to believe I was torturing the horse and the horse managed to frighten me to death somehow before it died too?

This is basically how it unfolds in the film, as there's no indication at any point before the ending that an already concluded subplot was not actually concluded at all.

And this is just the plot-relevant messes that are treated sloppily and without any real direction. So much of this film could have been pared down and tightened up. Instead it feels like you're watching the final version of a product that did not go back to erase all traces of content it edited out. Like watching a cartoon where the final painted product was painted on top of the earlier drafts.

OK overall. The script is the definition of missed opportunity.

[vandeman-scott · 5/10 · 1 September 2021]

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.

So bad movie...

[D31an · 4/10 · 10 February 2013]

This movie is a total disaster. It was so boring and I almost fell asleep while watching it... The first part was marvellous and this one is a disaster... I knew something like this would happen, but I still decided to see it. I do not really have that much to write about this movie, but still I can say that I advise those who made this movie do not any longer inflict disgrace to the first part of this film with future sequels. The only movie with great sequels is Hostel and that franchise deserves to have sequels, but THIS one does not... They only ruin a good movie with bad sequels... The very same thing happened to Paranormal Activity... I rated it with 4 because the film does not deserve, in my opinion, any higher rating.

A Nutshell Review: Ghosts of Georgia

[DICK STEEL · 6/10 · 1 February 2013]

The Haunting in Connecticut film series can be that real estate warning that if something's too good to be price-wise, it probably is, and comes along with its resident ghoul and spooky background that's hiding some deep, dark secret. Which explains its rock bottom price that's unbelievable for a mansion on sprawling grounds. This Ghosts of Georgia sequel is handled by a completely different creative team, utilizing similar "Based on a true story" tricks, and a premise based on a haunted house, with everything after being fairly decent and makes for an average horror flick at best.

Director Tom Elkins shows his inexperience in handling atmosphere and mood, with the creation of suspense almost found wanting. There's the over utilizing and reliance on sound to try and be that spooky lead in, which under a relatively new director, became a pre-cursor, priming the audience for something, and making the cardinal sin of not delivering what got promised. It may be seen as an attempt not to fall into the temptation of dipping into the tried and tested cues, but one has to be creative and inventive to work something effective. The presentation styles, while well-meaning to show the audience the different worlds seen by the characters - real, and the ghostly, the constant flitting about does get on the nerves, as does the MTV styled quick-cut editing that ultimately shadowed what should be seen.

If the Wyrick family was Chinese, they would feel they were one of the most unluckiest folks in the world, having Lisa (Abigail Spencer) and her sister Joyce (Katee Sackhoff) gifted with the ability to see spirits whether they like it or not, and this gift being passed down to Lisa's daughter Heidi (Emily Alyn Lind), who begins communicating with a certain Mr Gordy (Grant James), the previous owner of the new house in the middle of nowhere that they moved into. The only person to feel a little out of place, is Lisa's husband and Heidi's father Andy (Chad Michael Murray), who is just about the most normal, rational person around. You see, if the house is haunted, you bolt right out of there immediately, rather than to discredit one's young daughter as Lisa does. But yeah, she's on drugs to deny what she knows, with the entire gift versus curse issue being played out for far too long.

Like its predecessor in the series, writer David Coggeshall managed to weave a decent back- story into the reasons behind the haunting, that contained neat plot developments involving the story of Mr Gordy the previous owner of the property, and that of his ancestor known as the Station Master (Wayne Pere), at a time where slavery was the norm. Hailed as a hero of his time, the Station Master hides a dark secret which forms the climax of the film, which worked thanks to decent make up and special effects, only to be ruined by the camera-work which went all over the place except staying still and staying focused. The scene involving the spitting out of a needle, and its subsequent aftermath, was perhaps the best in the entire climax, with Andy's inexplicable mad drive into thick foliage being the most bewildering.

While both Abigail Spencer and Katee Sackhoff may be the resident scream queens in this movie, it is perhaps Emily Alyn Lind who steals the show with a fine performance. Child actresses of yesteryear have pretty much grown up now, and who would have thought Emily has already chalked up a couple of impressive roles, and continue to shine despite the lack of depth her character here has, given that she's just a kid, albeit with special abilities. Fans of the first film may want to watch this for completeness sake (a third film in the series has been green lit), but this is largely not a spook fest, with nary a scene that will make you jump at your seat.