The Haunting in Connecticut Reviews

So far this whole night I've just been watching horror movies since it's, you know, Halloween and I was looking for something to watch and I thought not why give this a try? What a complete waste of an hour and 40 minutes of my life. I could have used that time to watch another, most likely better, horror film. This is based on a true story, and whether it's true or not, I didn't buy any of it. I believed it to be as real as Paranormal Activity. Even three years later we still get productions like these, but this is pretty much the bottom of the barrel. I can only think of two or three movies that were worse than this over the course of the past three years.

I guess I should say the only few good things about this movie before I shred it(both in this review and from my mind). I'll admit there were a few good jump scares in the first fifty minutes or so of the movie, but that's about it. There was really only one good performance in this movie and that was from Kyle Gallner, though his performance doesn't do much to save the movie in any way. That's really it as far as the good things go.

As I stated above, there are plenty of jump scares and for a while they kept getting me but, they're so repetitive that by the fifty minute mark I started laughing instead of jumping from my seat. The whole movie itself after the fifty minute mark becomes comical, and is a chore to sit through. The scares evaporate at this point, partly because the movie then turns to trying so solve a mystery that's so uninvolving. Also, the repetitive jump scares and the fact that the filmmakers reveal too much that it's no longer scary.

The special effects are poorly done and are below what's acceptable, it's even below for what was acceptable three years ago. This movie looks like it was made on a budget of about five dollars. The ectoplasam is laughable, the dummies that are suppose to be the dead bodies look fake, the scenes when the walls start to peel are poorly done, and the make-up for the ghosts is not all that impressive or scary.

With the exception of Kyle Gallner the acting is piss poor. Virginia Madsen, who plays the mother, delivers her lines as if she's improvising or trying to so hard keep a straight face. I'd go with the latter and who can blame her? If I had to say some of these lines, I'd probably burst out in laughter as they're unintentionally hilarious. Like almost every haunted house movie, she plays the dumb parent who doesn't believe anything the kids say and then somewhere in the middle or end of the film realizes that they're kids were right and something really is wrong. Of course there is also the typical helpful man in a cloth because what ghost movie would there be without one? This movie just keeps on piling the cliches.

Like every other PG-13 horror movie everything is cut out, there's no gore or nudity which makes this movie more painful to sit through. I'm not sure if gore and nudity would have made this movie better but it would have helped. I'm not saying all PG-13 movies are bad, for example: Insidious and The Woman in Black, but it takes 10 movies like these to find nice surprises like those. Those movies proved they didn't need to scare audiences by spraying copious amount of blood at the audience because they had good acting, smart characters and atmosphere, which this movie lacked. Ha smart characters, this movie should win dumbest family of the year award. Even after they've all had an encounter with the ghosts and get the crap scared out of them do you think they leave? Pack up their bags and get as far away as possible? No, they go back to their rooms and try to sleep it out. These people deserve what they get.

Overall, don't waste your time with this like I did. Even if you're looking for something with cheap jump scares and "Boo!" moments you're better off looking elsewhere. The acting is piss poor, the effects look like they were made with a five dollar budget, the dialogue is unintentionally hilarious, the characters are cliched and stupid, and it's boring. Once I got past the 50 minute mark I was bored, and was wishing this movie would end. It's funny how in the end (SPOILERS if you even care at this point) that the kid burns the bodies and all the pictures because that's what they should have done with this movie in the first place. They should have thrown it in a fire so all those poor souls(like me) didn't waste an hour and forty minutes of their life that they'll never get back on this garbage. I'll certainly burn what I just saw in my mind though, so I can forget about what the hell I just watched. That's the main reason why I decided to type this review as quickly as possible.

not bad - the History channel done a documentry on the actual case this is based on and is far far better

"Maybe this place is haunted..."

Similar to The Amityville Horror, 2009's The Haunting in Connecticut is a supernatural horror film which employs the "based on a true story" crutch as a hook to entice movie-goers. Of course, the claim that it's based on an actual suburban haunting is all smoke and mirrors, as those who spend even half an hour conducting research will realise the majority of this film's narrative was invented by the screenwriters (Adam Simon and Tim Metcalfe). Interestingly, even Ray Garton - who novelised the particular ordeal - has gone on record stating he doubts the veracity of the story, and this all goes to show how loose the phrase "based on a true story" can sometimes be employed. Interestingly, too, The Haunting in Connecticut seems not that it's based on a true story, but instead based on horror movies of prior decades.

The story concerns the members of the Campbell family, whose oldest son Matt (Galler) is suffering from cancer. In order for them to live in close proximity to a specialty clinic where Matt (Gallner) is undergoing experimental treatments, the family opt to rent a house in Connecticut. However the realtor explains that the house "has a history", which soon becomes apparent when Matt begins witnessing disturbing images at night. At first he believes they are mere hallucinations as a result of his cancer treatments, but the visions are far too vivid. When it's revealed the residence was formerly used as a funeral home, Matt seeks help from a fellow cancer patient, Reverend Popescu (Koteas), who recognises the horrific signs as a cry for help from a macabre past.

To its credit, The Haunting in Connecticut does neglect a few horror clichés we've come to expect from the genre, but these are unfortunately replaced by generic plotlines more common to film in general. On top of the formulaic ghost story, there's the sudsy melodrama about Matt dying from cancer and the impact it has on his family. A poorly-developed side plot exposes the father of the family as an emotionally-abusive former alcoholic, but this is barely touched upon and seems to have been included to add an extra ten minutes to the runtime. Meanwhile the mother is unable to connect with her dying son on an emotional level, and struggles to hold her family together. These clichés don't stop, with the wise priest entering at the right moment to provide an essential service, and children seeing unsettling images as well. Moreover, the characters are without personality and believability. In fact, they deserve a Stupid Horror Movie Character Award in the Family Category. After all, once the ghosts scare the hell out of everyone, the protagonists don't bother to leave the house and head for the closest motel...instead they return to their beds and try to sleep. If people are stupid enough to remain in a situation like that when they could easily leave, they deserve exactly what they get.

In addition, The Haunting in Connecticut is so bankrupt when it comes to generating an effective atmosphere of dread that first-time director Peter Cornwell inserts countless "boo!" moments in an attempt to keep viewers interested. Thus, scenes of dialogue are frequently punctuated with glimpses of a ghostly figure reflected in a mirror or passing outside of a window. These scares are appallingly telegraphed too, with menacing music cues, obvious framing, and protracted dramatic pauses. It becomes almost comical after a while. Indeed, if one played a drinking game in which one swallowed a gulp of alcohol each time a ghoul appeared on-screen in a flash edit of hazy doom, chances are you'll be drunk within half an hour... It's that overused. Furthermore, the PG-13 rating forbids overtly gruesome or explicit content - this means no gratuitous nudity, no requisite sex scene between husband and wife, and the burnt corpses look distinctly tame. Neither nakedness nor gore could have salvaged this paint-by-numbers chiller, but the film would've at least been more digestible.

On the bright side, The Haunting in Connecticut is not unredeemably awful. The script clearly strived to flesh out these characters well enough, and the acting is passable. The plotting also accommodates the removal of one of the most embarrassing horror clichés of all - since the story takes place during the 1980s before the days of the internet, the characters at no point research the phenomenon via Google as a means to lazily advance the narrative to the next plot point. The problem with The Haunting in Connecticut, however, is that it simply feels stale. The story is not interesting or surprising enough, the protagonists aren't compelling enough to latch onto, and the cinematic style is dull.

4.0/10