Lionsgate | Release Date: February 1, 2013
4.4
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 23 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
10
Mixed:
3
Negative:
10
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
slipperyJun 21, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia is not a horrible film. Almost. But not quite.

The good:
Chad Michael Murray as the father. He comes across very naturally. This guy needs better roles than this. Give him the right script and he'll give a star performance. Katee Sackhoff. Again, a very natural, genuine, varied performance.

The movie has some good suspense, some good atmosphere. It has some original ideas.

The bad:
The script. It's not finished. Come on, guys! This is a rough draft at best. It needed more polish. What it needed to be was a ghost story. We did NOT need an evil demonic character stalking the woods. The scenes at the end are cliche. "Based on a true story" or not, the last third of the movie needed serious rewriting and the middle third needed to be tightened, and about half of the first third could have been cut.

There are obviously things in this movie that were not part of anybody's true story.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
casherJun 22, 2013
The most baffling thing about this movie is the title. Why even have Connecticut in the name? The movie has nothing to do with the original and it doesn't take place in Connecticut. Why not just call it "The Haunting in Georgia"? The onlyThe most baffling thing about this movie is the title. Why even have Connecticut in the name? The movie has nothing to do with the original and it doesn't take place in Connecticut. Why not just call it "The Haunting in Georgia"? The only thing that was redeeming in this movie was the little girl who played Heidi and the support hot redhead that played Joyce. Other than that, this is a terrible movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
A_So_Horror_FanJun 5, 2015
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 nowI 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 hauntings. 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”
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews