| Actors: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Director(s): | Peter Cornwell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMDB Rating: | 5.80 out of 10 (3744 votes) |
Downloads
| Runtime: | 102 minutes |
| Resolution: | 672x272 px |
| Codec: | DivX v5 |
| Bit Rate: | 801 kbps |
| FPS: | 23.976 |
No additional software or browser plug-ins required!
All downloads are available instantly.
You can play them for unlimited number of times whenever you want.
Downloaded movies will work perfectly on any PC, DVD player, PDA etc.
You will be able to burn downloaded files on a CD or DVD.
Technical Information
| Type | Resolution | Codec | Bitrate | Audio Channels |
| Language: English | 48 kHz | MPEG Layer-3 | 128 kbps | 2 |
| File Name | Size | Download |
| The_Haunting_in_Connecticut.avi | 699.72 MiB | Download |
| Total Size: | 699.72 MiB |
Storyline
- Some things cannot be explained.
- What if the only explanation for what you saw was unbelievable?
Movie Photos
We have taken some photos of "The Haunting in Connecticut". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews
-
Could have done better posted on 31 Aug 2009
Lets start with the good stuff. This film is very well written, with realistic dialogue and characters, and events that manage to stay just this side of believable. The acting, too, is very good. Kyle Gallner, as the young boy who is the focus, gives a very strong performance (he's heading for an Oscar one day) In the hands of a good director, this would have been chilling and atmospheric. Unfortunately, the director is rubbish. His style is 'point, shoot, make 'em jump' The fact that the acting is so good is despite the directors incompetence - he has no sense of how to build atmosphere, or a sense of tension.The final nail in the coffin is the score. This should have been an atmospheric, slow-building type of movie - and yet it is scored like a Friday 13th movie, with screeching violins at every possible jumpy moment, and heavenly choirs at possible death scenes.This would have been a good ghost story, up there with Blair Witch or Amityville, if only the score and direction had been up to the standard of the writing and acting.
-
My sisters and myself have had a long going argument about something.My sisters and I have only seen two scary films this year.One being Drag me to Hell. The other being The Haunting in Connecticut. For some stupid reason, my sisters prefer The Haunting in Connecticut. I prefer Drag Me to Hell. And so does the rest of the world. I had a few problems with The Haunting in Connecticut.Problem number 1:There was hardly enough time for story, only for jumpy scene after jumpy scene after jumpy scene. there were a dozen jumpy scenes. Over a dozen. After a while, I couldn't take the jumpy scenes.Problem number 2:The film says Based on the truth.I've seen The Haunting in Connecticut episode, and it wasn't quite what the film was. They took out many things that I expected to see. DRag me to Hell was horror movie heaven. The Haunting in Connecticut isn't particurally a bad film. It just has it's flaws.Some films do and some films don't. On a lighter note... I like Virginia Madsen. I also think that the person who plays her son does a good job also.It also scared me a few times. But some of the scary moments you could see coming. I give it a very mild recommendation.The Haunting in Connecticut:6.2
-
I saw the trailer for this movie a few months ago, and hoped that the movie would be half as good as the trailer.Well I needn't have worried, as here is a movie that whilst nothing that new, executes it's storyline beautifully, and the plot is backed up by a convincing cast.For a change, there is actually character development going on here, and you end up caring what happens to them.The scares are of the old fashioned 'boo!'jump out of your seat type, and work amazingly well as they are just so well timed.The cinematography is superb, and the lighting creates the right mood too.When this comes to DVD, I think it will unnerve people even more as they watch it alone in the dark, rather than a movie theatre where there are other people around! As you can tell, I really loved this film, and if you like your horror movies to be slightly old fashioned, well crafted, and not to cater to the teen market, then I highly recommend this to you.
-
There is one of those coin operated crane machines full of cheap, worthless junk in the lobby of the multiplex. As I was walking out, I thought how ironic it was that I could have fed eight dollars worth of quarters into the machine and not felt as ripped off as I did buying a ticket to this movie. I have seen this movie a dozen times over the past decade. Nothing new here folks. Just two hours worth of jump scares with loud sound effects. Want to get the same "scare" for nothing? Just give a friend two metal trashcan lids with the instructions to bang them together behind your back when your not looking. Same thing. That's not scary, just annoying and you jump because it is a reflex. Had I not been with someone else (who was enjoying it ) I would have left after about 45 minutes.
-
I am usually least interested to see a horror movie. And after finally making up my mind, i went ahead and watched it. It is surprisingly an amazing movie. It has an element of reality and truthfulness. It will not make you repent after you come out of your seat. Has very good story line and at the same time, moves with good pace. The actors have done marvelous role and i specially liked the role of the kid ( who has played a role of a victim) , he has held the character very well and made the movie even more realistic. The are some spooky scenes in the movie which can drive you nuts and make you dance on your seat. The direction and the sound effects are simply out of the world. The thing that makes it even more beautiful is that, it is based on a true story. So it actually makes you think. At the end i would say, personally i really liked this movie and I would recommend you to see it. Don't wait until the DVD comes out, it has its own feel on the big screen. Enjoy!
-
If you are have seen the actual story or read a book about the actual case you will see that this awful recreation did not follow the actual story at all except for a couple of brief scenes and the fact the house was used as a funeral home but that is where any similarities to the actual story end. They also cut out any reference to the Catholic Church, God or evil in the form of any demonic entities which figured prominently in the actual case! The Catholic Church sanctioned an official exorcism for the family and the house which if you know anything about the Catholic Church you would realize that this is rare and the requirements are substantial and onerous! This is unfortunately a politically correct attempt to present a movie which has nothing to do with the actual story and goes off on some metaphysical New Age tangent which in my opinion is not scary and is laughable. It also does a disservice to the telling of the actual story which is definitely scarier and much more interesting. I have a feeling the group who made this movie are not believers in God or the existence of good and evil as defined with God being the source of good and Satan being the Adversary and responsible for evil so they came up with this mumbo jumbo story to put a movie out there in which any potential supernatural occurrences could be explained by New Age science without God or the devil. If you want to see the actual story then check it out on the Discovery Channel or check out the DVD which is for sale now. If you want a laugh and only if it is for free then check out this movie otherwise don't waste the money!
-
Horror movies of today, why are most of them PG-13? Why are we relying on the "loud noise" factor to scare us? Why is everything now always "based on a true story"? Is it supposed to make it that much scarier? But when I saw the trailer for The Haunting in Connecticut, it actually sent chills down my spine. I never had the opportunity to see it in the theater, so I did the rental and to be honest I'm glad I didn't see this in the theater for one reason, the loud noises. Seriously, I watched this in the dark with the volume turned up and I can't tell you how many years this movie possibly took off my life with every single skip that my heart beat took. The Haunting in Connecticut is not a bad movie by no means, it's a fun ghost story, definitely gave me the creeps in a few scenes. While I'm a little "iffy" on some of the effects, this was an effective story. I just wish they would stop pulling the "based on true events" crud, because you know that if this really did happen, Hollywood emphasizes, the person was emphasizing, the person was crazy, or the person was definitely looking to fill up their wallet during the writing of this script.Matthew Campbell is being treated for cancer on a trial therapy in a remote hospital. After seeing the effect the long commute has on Matt, his mother rents a nearby house, which she learns was previously a funeral home. They discover a mortuary room in the basement that they are unable to enter initially. The family begins experiencing violent, supernatural events that the parents first blame on stress and hallucinations from Matt's medications and treatment. Matt also experiences several disturbing visions of a séance from the point of view of a young man named Jonah and witnesses a doctor inscribe runes onto the skin of a corpse. They investigate the house's past, and discover the previous owner, Doctor Aickman, conducted séances in the house, using his assistant Jonah as a medium, who convinced many skeptics of his abilities. Doctor Aickman and his guests all died during one of the séances, and Jonah went missing. But things keep getting worse as the family descends into the house's madness.Over all I did like the movie, it had a very decent story, but of course it has it's flaws. The father is an alcoholic, now I admit that he was intense to watch, but it didn't further the story by any means, so it didn't have much of a point. The ghost coming out of Johah's mouth that we see on the DVD cover was a bit cheesy, it just looked like one of those fans that are blowing ribbons around and makes the ends flap like crazy. Also I think this would have been a bit more scary with less noise and more Rated R adult content. But I have to admit that this did have some very effective scares, like Matthew's descent into madness. A scene that was so subtle but was perfect on the scares was when Matthew is in the funeral room and he puts his little brother on a metal table that was used for autopsies and starts spinning the boy around and around and to see the look on Matthew's face was extremely creepy. So to finish this up, the acting was OK, the story despite it's not being so original as The Amityville Horror is still pretty creepy, the effects could have used some work, the loud noises need to be cut down a notch, I'm just going to say this is worth the watch for a rental, but just don't expect too much.5/10
-
The year was 1999 and two haunted house movies hit the multi-plexes. There was The Haunting, starring Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones and House on Haunted Hill with Geoffrey Rush.The films came at a time when haunted house movies seemed scarce. Everyone remembers the Amityville Horror and some have fond memories of House, but as far as horror movies go, the 80's and 90's spent more time giving us Jason's and Freddies, rather than focusing in on something that can be relatable to all viewers (who hasn't been spooked by a creaking floorboard).The two 1999 entries did nothing to re-energize the genre. And two years later, Thir13een Ghosts added to the lukewarm resume of haunted house filmdom.Since 2001, there have been additional haunted house movies (the remake of Amityville included), but most of them ended up going straight to DVD and for good reason. We were treated to more ghosts (The Sixth Sense, The Others) than we were possessed homes.But a 2002 documentary on the Discovery Channel named, A Haunting in Connecticut caught the interest of a major studio. The story is of a family who move into their new home only to be haunted by the home's funeral parlor past was chilling and, dare I say it, damn-well scary.Writers Tim Metcalfe and Adam Simon worked on a screenplay directed by Peter Cornwell (Post Apocalyptic Pizza) in bringing the story to the big screen in the aptly named The Haunting in Connecticut.Proclaiming to be based on the true story, The Haunting in Connecticut follows the Campbell family, Sara (Virginia Madsen), Matt, Peter and Billy who are portrayed as your typical average American family who find their dream home in…wait for it….Connecticut.But their charming Victorian home has a secret – a bunch of nasty ghosts that channel and torment teenaged Matt, who just so happens to be suffering from cancer. Talk about a family that can't catch a break.The film's 'Based on a true story' promotion is what makes this film in any way scary. The thought of these being real people in a real situation is the true terror of the film as was the case with Amityville and The Entity.Wherein a shower curtain that attacks someone might be something of consensus snickering in a fiction based story, the fact that the producers push the realism of the events make the scene a bit scarier. Just a bit (it's still a shower curtain).The Haunting in Connecticut is one of those films that is a roller coaster ride of good and bad. You dive into the lives of these poor saps from the shallow end of the plot pool and hats off to the director for trying to give us a good back story before floating us into the deep horror of their situation.The acting was a bit spotty in parts (even Madsen couldn't rise too much above the material), but it was enough to keep us interested in the Campbell's even if there wasn't any kind of an emotional attachment.As for the horror, well, it was nothing you haven't seen before. If figures that appear in the background of the unbeknowing actors or slamming doors freak you out, then this is your cup of tea.But for the majority of the horror and thriller paying customers, The Haunting in Connecticut just doesn't pass the mustard. The house is creepy and a box of eyelids had it's 'eww' factor, but putting all the parts together it was nothing that I will remember by mid-week.By the time Matt releases a bunch of mummified bodies from the walls of the house, you lose your belief that this was in fact based on any truth or reality.A good Saturday night film, The Haunting in Connecticut will play well with the teenage audience and earn back its modest production budget in its opening weekend. But for a story that was incredibly creepy, I suggest you track down the documentary of the same name and really get the bejesus scared out of you.
-
Ho-hum. Another formulaic tormented-spirit movie.Years ago the house hosted seances conducted by the local mortician. Mysterious things happened. Dark doings were covered up. Spirits of the recently deceased were never released to their eternal destinies. They continue to hang around and annoy the house's new occupants, who have problems enuf of their own without the added irritations. While the restless dead seek release, and are capable of manipulating all sorts of things in the real world (including carving arcane symbols on the body of a sleeping teenager who doesn't seem to notice a problem until he wakes up), none of them ever seems to tumble to the idea of picking up a lipstick and writing a simple message on the bathroom mirror like "Hey, look behind the fireplace.".Virginia Madsen has stooped to this. How sad.Shot in some house in Winnipeg. Should've been shot at conception in Hollywood. If you are the 1,433rd person to see it, congratulations, your ticket purchase means that Gold Circle Films has covered its production costs, which means we'll keep getting more of these.
-
the haunting in Connecticut was a dumb and boring movie. although Virginia Madsen was outstanding, the movie still sucked. there were some touching moments in the film, and that made it OK to watch but if you take out those parts then the movie was a snooze fest. and while everyone else was jumping at the pop outs i was yawning. i do not recommend this film, but if your are a fan of true stories and Virginia Madsen then I guess you can rent it and be some what impressed. the editing of the flashbacks was horrible, it hurt my eyes. this film had no scary parts in it, they were cheasy and stupid. this film should not be considered horror, it should be considered supernatural drama.
-
Well after i watched the documentary version last week which was bad,i didn't have much hope for the movie,but it was OK and above average for the recent horror films these days.This movie had good acting and a good storyline,but i doubt everything that happened in it was true to what really went on in the house,but i do believe cause I've seen a ghost myself in a place known to be haunted and where other people have seen one.I do recommend this to people who like ghost stories,but don't watch the documentary its not worth it trust me.This movie had potential to be better than what it was,maybe the PG13 rating held it back.I give this 5 out of 10 stars
-
Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner) has a terminal cancer and is submitted to an experimental treatment in the St. Michael's Hospital Goatswood in Connecticut. The responsible for the trial, Dr. Brooks (D.W. Brown), advises that if Matt starts seeing things, he should drop from the trial. His religious mother Sara (Virginia Madsen) drives almost eight hours with her son since he has nausea and needs to vomit during the travel. She proposes her husband Peter (Martin Donovan), who had trouble with booze, to rent a house in Connecticut to be close to the hospital despite their second mortgage. Sara finds an old house with an affordable price and she questions the catch to the owner and he explains that the house has a history, since it was a funeral home in the past. Sara hides the truth to Peter and the family moves to the house. While in the treatment, Matt befriends Reverend Popescu (Elias Koteas), who has also cancer. When Matt has weird visions and nightmares from the past, he calls Popescu that tells him that an evil entity is trapped in the house and they are able to see him because they are in the borderline of the worlds of the living and the dead. "The Haunting in Connecticut" is an above average movie of haunted house since it blends a very well developed family drama with spooky scenes of a ghost story. There are many realist situations like the bad financial situation of the Campbells that are usually forgotten in American movies. Further, there is a beautiful message of faith, and Sara truly believes that God works in a mysterious way. The drinking problem of Peter and how it affected the relationship with Sara is just glanced and could be better explored. I do not like the sensationalism that highlights on the cover of the DVD that the story is based on a true event since this movie is better than that. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Evocando Espíritos" ("Evoking Spirits")
-
Let's get the negatives out of the way first of all. This is no Exorcist. Nor is it Halloween or any of the classic horror films. It is silly to even compare this film to them because it just doesn't belong to them. Yet, in a way, this is the closest Hollywood has come to producing a movie worthy of that group, perhaps since The Sixth Sense. And yes, it falls victim to the horror clichés of today; flickering lights, brain-shatteringly loud sound effects accompanying every face-in-the-mirror jump scare (and there are many of them) and the disappointing need to end everything in a migraine inducing, full-blown CG- fest that almost undoes everything that has come before it. But look closer. For the most part, the film relies not on gore but on mood and atmosphere. The house is treated like a character; plenty of ominous POVs a la Halloween, and every creak and moan from the floorboards feels scripted; which isn't always a bad thing. Elsewhere, the acting is, in comparison to recent attempts at horror (stand up The Uninvited), really very good; Virginia Madsen provides a solid emotional core as the struggling mother who refuses to let her son be taken by the cancer that is ravaging his body, but the real revelation in Kyle Gallner, best known as Veronica Mars's Beaver, who excels at drawing the audience into the escalating fear and madness as he battles for both his life and his soul. The story won't win awards for originality, or indeed plausibility, but this isn't the Amityville Horror-rip off that it could have been. It's rarely original, but never anything less that entertaining. And as for the scares, this easily tops the rest of the pile of recent horror films; with a steady rate of heart-freezing jump scares (surprisingly, the trailer doesn't show the scariest moments) along with genuinely disturbing moments (the pictures under the floorboards, the eyelids, the eye-lid-less bodies). It's a shame to say that the best of the recent horror films have all been made outside of America (The Orphanage, Let the Right One In). However, with 'Connecticut', Hollywood has shown that every so often it lives up to its heritage of 'good' horror films- 'good', not 'great'.VERDICT: 'Haunting' is a surprisingly decent addition to the Hollywood horror machine; above par film-making, genuine scares, solid acting...but part of the machine none-the-less.
-
Math has always haunted me, and the recent Nick Cage Knowing reminds me how little numerology can help a moribund script. But this I do know: Both Knowing and The Haunting in Connecticut are zero sums, worthless scary flicks deserving to be buried in the graveyard between Oscar and summer.The Haunting in Connecticut warns from the titles it is based on "the true story" of a family moving into a former Connecticut mortuary where apparently all the bodies were not buried and may need to be because they drive this family to the grave, so to speak. Specifically it is based very loosely on Al and Carmen Snedeker's experiences in Southington, Connecticut.Virginia Madsen, an Oscar nominee who should pick better roles lest she become wealthy like Cage by feeding off deadly scripts, plays mother Sara Campbell moving her brood to the former mortuary to be near the hospital for cancer patient son, Matt (Kyle Gallner). Because Matt is close to death, he can be close to ghosts in the house who play the standard games of darting in and out of frame accompanied by ghoulish music of the most familiar kind.Ed and Lorraine Warren were investigators as well for the Amityville Horror, so the story lines have a familiar ring. Contrast this story with the better-done family haunting in Poltergeist and The Shining and you have a good idea why Haunting in Connecticut makes you wonder you didn't wait until the next life to view this dross, a time when you will have all the time to look at junk and appreciate how the writers could have been so spot on about the horror of the next life.Haunting is filled with tired clichés, quick cuts to make MTV envious, and an amusingly confusing plot—all a testament to the brilliance of 28 Days Later and the durability of The Exorcist. I'll wait, thank you, to be haunted again by those estimable ghosts of movies that live forever.But not in Connecticut.
-
Open your wallet. Take out a ten dollar bill. Rip it in half. This is how I felt after watching this movie. Take my advice. DO NOT SEE IT!!! Going in to this movie, I had decided that it was going to be cheap and predictable, but fun anyways. I am not the cynical movie critic who blasts movies on their typical themes or plot lines, but this one left me stunned. I cannot believe that the casting, screenplay, and special effects on any Hollywood movie could be so terribly amiss. Casting. In truth, this entire movie was impossible to believe because the acting was so pathetic. The mother seemed completely out of her league, rattling off transparent lines that were shallow but were made to be serious. The possessed boy had the same constipated look on his face the entire time, but his acting was not entirely to blame. Do not even get me started on the reverend. He was absolutely ridiculous. During every single one of his lines, I started laughing. Plot. The ghost boy, Jonah, is a medium for seances conducted by an evil man who tries to augment his power by making him throw up a liquidy substance that is said to be the power of the dead. This death vomit is intended to be frightening. So he haunts the house, along with other dead people, for a reason that is to say the least, ambiguous and abstruse. A shaky, hurried plot is matched with horrid special effects to create the ultimate farce. If you find a burn victim flashing on the screen thirty times behind a character terrifying, then this is the movie for you. Please do not waste your money. I go to the movies a lot, and I have learned to appreciate movies with little substance that still offer entertainment. This movie was not even able to attain that stature. Save your money, go rent something better.
-
As a disclaimer, I'm going to say that I generally do not enjoy the "horror" genre. Well, the horror genre of today, I suppose. I could go on for hours about how movies aren't really very scary anymore, in the sense that I get scared. There are no more Alfred Hitchcock's in the film industry. But that post is for another day. The Haunting in Connecticut, apparently based on a true story (but what horror movie isn't anymore?), gave me every single reason to hate it. It threw every horror cliché (i.e., following strange and scary noises into a dark basement), it gave some cheap thrills (i.e., "people" randomly walking/standing somewhere in the house and only the audience sees them), and it has characters who happen to be randomly brilliant and understand the reason for all of these "occurrences." For the majority of the first half of the film, I was laughing. Granted, I jumped once or twice, but that's what cheap thrills do: you jump, then you forget about them. There's no lasting effect - no lasting fear. Still, despite all of these reasons to completely bash this film, I thoroughly enjoyed it. All the way home, I racked my brain (whilst deliberately driving past a graveyard to prove to my friend that the movie did not scare me) as to why I actually liked the movie, and I came to this conclusion: it all lies within the acting. This is not your standard teen slasher flick (See: When a Stranger Calls or the remake of Halloween) with terrible acting but ridiculously good-looking females. This time around, the actors actually act, which is a concept unknown to most in the horror genre. The fact that it's well-acted made me create more of a connection with the characters rather than view them as ridiculous, expendable and altogether deserving of the terrible fate they would get. Gallner leads the way as a teenager stricken with cancer and the real centerpiece of the supernatural happenings. Madsen does a stand-up job as the mother trying to come to terms with her son's ultimate demise. Koteas plays a preacher who happens to understand what's going on within the house. Yes, the characters are cliché, but the actors make the characters believable and worthy of your sympathy. So again, the acting makes the movie in this one. Now, as I said before, this is not your typical horror movie of today. It's more of a psychological thriller along the lines of The Number 23, in which Madsen also starred. So if you're looking for a chance to see some blood and guts and relentless sex, this isn't for you. You should probably go watch the remakes of Friday the 13th or The Last House on the Left. They'll probably appeal to you so much more.
-
A serious horror movie, based on real events. The classic subject of an old house, haunted, and a family member chosen as the communication channel by modifying its behavior, only this time some elements are slightly different. The sick boy that seems to have become dangerous only seems so, as he is still really a messenger for the other world, just not as it happens usually, but handled by the benevolent forces this time in an attempt to defend the family from the true evil ones, more numerous and really angry and trained. The output is through nothing spectacular, maybe we can consider a plus the amount of sensitive details, though they don't share the same nature as the happenings presented in the film, the few pictures from the generic reused later as immortalized evidence of the house's history, which holds resemblance to another example of the genre much more memorable and impressive - The Others- and also the much missed presence of his Virginia Madsen, in both mainframe productions and well-made horror movies (remember Candyman). Based on real facts, perhaps the director did not allow too many "poetic licenses" even though I am sure he could have, in return, for me at least, it was quite effective in trying to give birth to some few thrills, by the mere fact that I remember still today the same story reported as a documentary on Discovery with the same characters and events, a moment quite terrifying at the time and that without prefabricated intentions of the producers.
-
There seems to always be a low budget, hidden little gem of a horror film that usually falls into The Exorcist, or haunting spirits genre and this is definitely in that category. The story is solid, the plot is interesting and while some of the background story and some of the moments in the film are a little complex it still holds itself together. It almost feels like it's on the verge of falling apart but literally never does. Basing it in reality much like The Amytiville Horror or The Exorcism of Emily Rose both brilliant movies really does give a horror film that extra edge. Even if you don't want to believe it's in the back of your head that this supposedly happened. The background story of this house and the possible answer to the possession is eerie and makes for some incredibly gruesome and horrifying flashbacks. The sub plot of the main character being terminally ill also adds to the drama and intensity of the entire story. The performances aren't incredibly strong and no one person truly stands out but they hold their own with a good creepy story of possession set in a creepy old house with a mysterious background.Virginia Madsen plays loving mother Sara who wants nothing more than to protect her son. Madsen does a decent job, she shows the proper emotion without ever really truly impressing viewers. She just doesn't really have the screen presence to be really a star but she still holds her own. Kyle Gallner, who at a young age has had a lot of great roles in various TV and film roles. He is really terrific in this role and impressively creepy as the possessed terminally ill son of Madsen. He keeps you riveted to the story and you root for him as the hero. Martin Donovan, Sophi Knight, Ty Wood, and Amanda Crew rounds out the supporting cast and family. They have small roles but all do a good solid job in their respective roles. Ty Wood who is a young actor has a very emotional scene opposite Gallner during an incident of possession. Sadly underused is Elias Koteas who plays a dark, terminally ill Priest who attempts an exorcism of the house. I just feel like the story would have been made even better of Koteas had the chance to have a bigger role.Peter Cornwell is not an experienced director but he seems to have a handle on the content for this film. A relatively low budget of 23 million ensures that a film with this type of genre will almost guaranteed succeed and it did exactly that!! The story is enthralling, creepy with plenty of jumps and gore. It really has a little of everything for those that like this type of genre. This one holds it's own against other in the same genre of movie. Definitely worth seeing if you want a good scare and good solid story!! 8.5/10
-
Hi, I just registered to because I felt the need to, so as I could complain about this "film".It is completely awful. Picture the scenario; A few cans of beer and the lights off. Put on film, hoping to be at least somewhat impressed by the recent popularity of this "film" (please don't tire of the inverted commas, I plan to keep using them).Utter garbage. E.G. If you're one of those people that are at all inclined to bear the mental invasion that is 'most haunted' (or similar), on one of those crappy cable channels... first of all I pity your lack of better judgment, secondly I imagine that even previous viewing levels of eye/mind savagery will not prevent the trigger-finger reflex of your closest appendage to whack the space-bar in your media layer of choice in a vain attempt to reduce the damage done to your already filth-molested eyes.A pox on this "film". The acting is sub sub-standard; in ways only conceivable to rejected yokels from a failed Gerry Springer audience casting session. Not bad enough to be 'good'. A lot worse, whole planets of undiscovered self- staining red-neck populations worse.Like come-on... a whole film narrated by 3-ball!?!? A fifteen second "It was a time of one mans war"-esquire generic American cheesy film trailer is bad enough.I want my exact 'to-the-second' viewing time back.
-
The Haunting in Connecticut is not a good horror. In fact it is pretty boring. The cast are reliable but somewhat detached from the manifestations that should scare them. The director has no idea how to create a plausible world from which the haunting occurs, instead relying on flash cutting and staple "boo, I'm behind you" scares."Based on a true story" rings hollow as horror cliché upon horror cliché is used to supplement the lack of originality in the material.This has all been done before and with much better results. Rather that ripping off numerous other horror pictures it would have been better to try and find something new to show the audience. Surely ghosts don't just creep about groaning , slamming doors!