Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Leofwine_draca The original HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT was an entirely run-of-the-mill ghosthouse spooker, so I don't know why I expected any differently of this one. And, indeed, THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2 is an entirely predictable addition to the usual genre of modern haunted house movies. An unsuspecting family move into an old house and soon discover that terrible events of the past are coming to life via some vengeful spirits.So far, so pedestrian, and sadly this film has very little going for it. Fans who are entirely undemanding of where or how they receive their ghostly chills may enjoy it a little, but the rest of us will be bored by the too-dark cinematography, which turns everything blue (like 99% of similar films); the bland cast members, who can bring no life to their thankless roles; and the entire lack of decent characters. Instead we get the usual CGI augmented ghost scares, and not a lot else.

David Arnold Haunting In Connecticut 2 is based on reportedly true events of a young family - Lisa Wyrick, her husband Andy, and young daughter Heidi - who make a fresh start in a new home in the woods of Georgia. Lisa & her sister, Joyce, (who moves in with the family) both have the ability to see ghosts and they soon find out that Heidi also has this ability. As time passes Heidi starts seeing more & more of a horrible event that took place there some 150 years prior and the evil behind it all.The main thing that struck me about this movie was the title, A Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia. It takes place in Georgia so how it can be a haunting in Connecticut is bewildering. It also has nothing to do with the first movie so again the title is misleading. It's not really that big a deal I suppose, but if you're hoping for a sequel (as I did) then you may be disappointed.I've never seen the original interviews or 'A Haunting...' TV series either so I don't know how true the movie depicts the family's events, but as an actual movie it's not too bad and I actually enjoyed it slightly more than the first. In saying that, however, the first hour is pretty messy. It just jumps about a bit and also gets pretty repetitive. For instance, a scene starts good...ends with a "scare". Next scene starts good...ends with a "scare", and so on. No real story building goes on and you kind of grab what you can as the movie goes on. The main part of the story that is never explained is why the family decide to move, though, but I guess it's just all left up to audience interpretation.Thankfully the last 30 minutes of the movie is MUCH better. Creepier "scare" scenes, the story's pieced together better and the movie moves along at a steadier pace. If it wasn't for the last 30 minutes then this movie would so easily have gotten a much lower rating.Overall not too bad of a "scare" movie to watch when there's nothing else on TV. Just don't expect anything amazing.

LisaFace 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.

lwillo94 During and after watching this film, I spent a long time trying to think of films which I thought were worse than this, I couldn't think of any.I literally made an IMDb account just so that I can warn the rest of the human race about this absolute abysmal excuse of a sequel. Not only did I make the IMDb account, I am also waffling on right now just so I meet the 10 line minimum because I have been so offended by this film.If I was to right a full summary of this movie I still wouldn't be able to fill the necessary 10 lines because the plot could have been written better Katie Price. If I were given the opportunity I would spend all my money to fly to America and let the director know that he is a first class wazzack and would give him a medal of dishonour celebrating his lack of talent. I do however have to commend the bravery of the producers who allowed this to happen.