>
You might also like
See More
Where to watch The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia
Watch The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia with a subscription on Max, rent on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Vudu, or buy on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Vudu.
Rate And Review
-
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
-
Fandango
-
AMCTheatres.com or AMC AppNew
-
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Regal Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Theater box office or somewhere else
The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia Photos
Movie Info
A historic Southern home's new residents (Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray) come face to face with a malevolent force.
-
Rating: R (Some Disturbing Horror Content)
-
Genre: Horror
-
Original Language: English
-
Director: Tom Elkins
-
Producer: Paul Brooks, Scott Niemeyer
-
Writer: David Coggeshall
-
Release Date (Theaters): original
-
Release Date (Streaming):
-
Runtime:
-
Distributor: Lionsgate Films
-
Production Co: Gold Circle Films
Cast & Crew
News & Interviews for The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia
Critic Reviews for The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia
Audience Reviews for The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia
-
Sequel to The Haunting in Connecticut is yet another unimpressive, bland sequel that doesn't add anything new to the first film. The ideas here are strained, and it's just another one of those films that was made to make more money, without any concern of creating something truly terrifying and atmospheric. This is a forgettable film, one that has a poor cast of actors that really don't have any screen presence and seem bored in their parts. The film is dull and unimpressive. The film lacks depth, and the scares are nonexistent. There is no effort put into this film, and it's a shame because like the first one, this film had the opportunity of being a very good film, instead it wastes its potential on cheap scares that don't work whatsoever. This film is awful, and it is a lacking film in terms of horror material, and it just threads old ideas that we've seen many times before. Like Its predecessor, this film just doesn't have the goods to really be a great horror film. Don't go into this film expecting anything great, it's a waste of time. The film is just garbage, the sheer lack of creativity is apparent throughout, and overall it's a prime example of how not to make a horror sequel. I really don't know why they made a follow up, it was unnecessary as the first film was forgettable. This follow up is just boring and uninteresting, if you've seen the original, then skip this one as it never is anything truly engaging or memorable for that matter. In fact, this is lazy filmmaking, and the filmmakers clearly can't make something to really capture the viewer's interest, and the filmmakers rely too much on predictability and old ideas that makes this film pretty bad.
-
This film has a really stupid title, considering where the film is actually set. It's clear that this was just a generic horror script and to give it a "chance" at finding an audience, they slap on the name of a successful horror film in order to fool people. To be honest, it really has nothing to do with the first one, and not that this is a problem since most DTV horror sequels are like this. So things definitely start things off on the wrong foot and it doesn't get much better from there. To be perfectly honest with you, this really isn't that bad of a movie, despite the rating. It's just one that is incredibly lazy and uninspired and it very clearly relies on horror cliches. There's the stereotypical blind lady that sees more than people with vision. Creepy visions that only reveal part of the story, silly jump scares, etc., etc. If you don't have a problem with watching a film you've seen done to death, then by all means, you could do much worse. The film doesn't get one star because it's offensively bad, nothing of the sort actually. It just doesn't really do much anything of note and it's a bad film because it offers nothing new, because the acting is lackluster and because the scares just aren't thought out. And not to mention, the potentially dangerous use of slavery. It doesn't backfire in this movie, but it doesn't really add anything to the movie. It doesn't add a layer of heartbreak to the story. The film has some interesting visual elements, but they're simply not enough to save this film. It is a bad movie, but it's not gonna make you pull your hair out.
jesse o Super Reviewer -
Has all the makings of a traditional horror story but falls to even give you a thrill. Enjoyed the first one which was creepy but this fails to impress.
-
Having seen a slate from the production of this film, it was originally titled, "The Haunting in Georgia", but for some reason, it became a sequel to the 2009 horror film, "The Haunting In Connecticut", even though a) it has absolutely no connection to the original besides touting a based on a true story precursor like the previous film and b) THE FILM IS IN GEORGIA, NOT CONNECTICUT. What a contradictory and completely laughable title for the film right off the bat. Non-film ranting aside, "Ghosts of Georgia" feels like a straight-to-DVD release, with average to bad graphics and some of the worst acting even in horror film standards. We're presented a family that is moving to Georgia. The mom, played by Abigail Spencer, may or may not have lived in this lonely little cabin as a little girl (they never really cover that topic very well). This house used to be owned by a stationmaster for the Underground Railroad and we learn this story from a preacher and strangers stopping by throughout the film. We also learn about it from the ghost sitings that Lisa (Spencer), her sister Joyce (Katee Sackhoff), and Lisa's little girl, Heidi, all share. The fact that everyone is in on these sightings takes away the scare factor. The ghosts are mainly just there to point and walk past the camera fast and nothing more. Even when more and more of the plot is revealed, as shocking as it ends up being, means very little with the lack of pacing through the film. With that, the film drags on during the first hour with no real occurrence and the same gags repeated over and over again. The most memorable scene is when Joyce is strung from her mouth by wires, but the entire film hardly feels worth it just for that two minute scene. As trivial as it may seem, had the film simply stuck with the title "The Haunting In Georgia" and tried to be its own, serious film, it would have made the film more bearable, but since it is obviously trying to be something its not and fails greatly while doing so, I am inclined to dislike the film that much more.
chris h Super Reviewer
Verified