Hello to all those faithfully reading and hopefully enjoying this effort to make even the worst horror movie more watcha... aw, screw that - I'm not that good. If a movie makes you cringe because yet another batch of unlikable teens that are pushing 30 are inching toward their deaths, having a party no one does anywhere ever, a paranormal movie is boring you to tears with unending pans of empty rooms, or thanks to CGI technology when people finally bite it, their blood squirts everywhere except on the victim, the ground, the people next to them... you're in good company and this is the right place for you.
Showing posts with label The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia. Show all posts

Sunday, December 29, 2013

WHY DO I PARTICULARLY HATE MOVIES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY 'BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS' OR 'BASED ON A TRUE STORY'? BECAUSE THEY'RE TOTAL BULLSH**




The Haunting In Connecticut (2009)
The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia (2013)


First I almost gave a review on the wrong movie - An American Haunting - since all these damned movies have basically the same title. The review on THAT horrid thing (starring 
an out-of-place Sissy Spacek and Donald Sutherland) is coming up 'cause I watched it so... that's another 93 minutes of my time wasted, I might as well warn others.

'Cause this horrid theme is not over ladies and gentlemen... coming soon to take your money for absolutely no reason is The Haunting In New York. Yippee. The makers of these dumb things, Gold Circle Films, states that even though there are three of these (oh please make them stop) that each movie is a movie by itself and not a sequel to any of the others. <sputters> Then why... <points to second title> Don't you know it's not a Something Crappy 2 unless it's related to Something Crappy 1? <facepalm>

The Haunting In Connecticut: So here we go... The first one starts by showing what is called memorial photography, popular when families did not have access or funds to have a lot of family pictures, and the high mortality rate cutting down loved ones early in life. In the funeral parlor, it was a practice to dress up the deceased, sometimes in their best outfits, and 'pose' them with their families. That usually was the only family photo they had. 

It might seem weird and spooky to us, having instant digital access to every second of our lives, but to them it was an act of love. A collection of some of the photos from that period can be found in the book Sleeping Beauty: Memorial Photography in America, by Stanley Burns. If you want a copy, be prepared to shell out some big money - new copies can go for almost $500, or you may find one used for almost $400.

So this family's story goes as follows (and was admitted to be almost total bullsh** by an extended member of the family): Sara (Virginia Madsen) has a family and a son with cancer (played by Kyle Gallner, the unlucky teen in the no-body-shown Jennifer's Body) . The hospital she has to take him to is too far away so they take a cheap rental house nearer to it. As she and the sick son Matthew move in, he immediately has those 'corner of the eye' things where he sees shadows. 

She finds a bunch of pictures and thinks they're weird - that's when she discovers the place used to be a funeral parlor and the pictures left behind were of families using memorial photography. Duh. If they went to all the trouble why are the pictures still... uh... ya know, I just want this moment to be over don't you?

She tosses them out (I recognized several being copies from Mr. Burns' book). We get more shadows blah blah visions of blood blah blah nightmares blah blah... you've probably already seen at least 70 percent of this movie if you've ever watched ones like the Amityville 
Horror (which was also crap) or take your pick of any haunting movie. They're pretty much all the same - it's like they stole my horror worksheet to map them out (patent pending).


We get the sick kid going out of his head (Gee, couldn't be from all the radiation and drugs could it?) and the 'discovery' of a kid named Jonah who held seances in the place and... sigh. We get priests. We get nightmares. We get... bored. Supposedly Matt though is the center of it all, being personally bothered by 'Jonah'. See, all mortuary owners are evil. That's right - eeeeeeevil. So the former owner, Mr. Aickman didn't just bury everybody - nope he used some bodies for eeeeeeevil rituals. Sorry, every time I think of that word I'm channeling Ren from Ren and Stimpy. Eeeeeeevil. You eeeeeeediot. Ahem.


So throw in a priest or reverend or whatever the hell he was telling Matt to 'find out what the spirit wants'. Yeah, I can totally see a religious figure doing that. Oh, and no 'haunting' movie is complete(ly stupid) without the scene where all the furniture is in a big pile in the center of the room 'cause we all know that ghosts are just frustrated interior decorators who want things a certain way.

So how doe
s it end? How do any of these end? After enduring a whole movie of shadows, things moving but not, doors opening, dreams, priests, etc. we get the big confrontation where 'Jonah' who was apparently cremated by the spirits he pissed off, gets back at Aickman and frees his own spirit by having Matt burn the place down. And Matt dies.

Pfffft, you know that's not it. We get the moment when Matt's 'spirit' hears his mother's voice and he chooses his life of constant pain over what they believe to be an eternity of cloud sitting. Interesting how these people's version of heaven is a totally wonderful place that no one wants to go to. Right? Right?


Okay, how much was true and how much was Hollywood? Well, there's a Connecticut, that's real. There was a family that moved there, that was real. The boy was sick. They found old photos of dead people (well yeah, they'd be dead now, duh). The house was a mortuary. The son went through a personality change. Aaaaand of course the infamous Warren couple (Amityville Horror, The Conjuring) gave their two cents which others forcefully gave back to 'em. Other than that, total BS. But then we already knew that, didn't we?

The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia: Now remember, this is NOT a sequel and of course you know that Georgia is nowhere NEAR Connecticut. I admit I can be really sarcastic. And a bit of a bitch. But there are those reviewers that are much better than me, and I found a paragraph about this film that made me laugh until I peed myself a little. 

After cleaning up, I decided it was just too good not to share (and I hate putting it that way because that's usually what everybody says on Facebook when passing around a poster or inspirational crap you've already seen a hundred times). It's from a site I really like called Bloody Disgusting at http://bloody-disgusting.com (which says a lot about my character I guess) and it is as follows:

Reviewed by Patrick Cooper: I hope you’re sitting down, readers, because I have some bad news. The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia does not take place in Connecticut at all. Nor is it about ghosts named Georgia. It takes place in the state of Georgia, which is often called the “Connecticut of the South,” I think. The good news is that this will inevitably lead to a 50+ film franchise covering all of the states and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. QVC could even sell a giant, collector’s map of the U.S., like they did when the state quarters came out. 

That way fans could display their entire collection of The Haunting in Connecticut films, like Ghosts of North Dakota, which is often called the “Connecticut of the Dakotas,” I think. Unfortunately, the idea of this many Haunting films is scarier than anything you’ll find in Ghosts of Georgia.

Bwahahahahahaaaaa... oops, wet 'em. Be right back...


Okay, the story is this family moved to a house in Georgia and immediately their three year old daughter got an imaginary friend. We get the story that all the females in the family had 'veils' when they were born - a caul (piece of membrane) over their face. In medieval times the appearance of a caul on a newborn baby was seen as a sign of good luck. It was considered an omen that the child was destined for greatness. In this movie, it means they have 'second sight'. Uh huh. Okay let's make this short and sour: The house and property were very familiar in the days of slavery and the owner of the house was a 'station master' for the underground railroad. 


Trouble was, some made it to keep going on, some disappeared. Did I mention this stationmaster was also a taxidermist? No? Well he was. And he decided that some of the runaways got to go through, others got stuffed. Literally. And set up in an underground shop like mannequins. Sheah right. 

So in a protracted movie full of nonsense, the spirits of the stuffed guys get to do the same to the spirit of the stationmaster (who the people had figured out he was a nasty one and hanged). With everybody free to, I dunno, do more cloud sitting as they believe, the scary stuff stopped and they lived in the house for years afterward.

How much was true? Well, there's a Georgia... do you really want me to continue? I thought not.


Saturday, December 28, 2013

MY SUMMATION OF THE HORROR MOVIE BUSINESS OF 2013 - IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOUGH, IT WAS TORTURE FOR ME... JUST KIDDING, I LOVE IT...



The Year 2013

This was a big year for the remake/reboot genre. I know, I know, it's not in itself a genre but it should be. We wept (or at least cursed under our breaths) when we saw our past favorites of every genre up on the big screen either chopped up and served to appease the younger masses, or in a bigger piss off, put up exactly as is with just a couple of 3D effects added and a bigger ticket price. Let's face it, 2013 sucked and 2014 isn't looking much brighter. This is what we had this year listed by Country:

United States:
Bad Milo!
Carrie
Curse of Chucky
The Conjuring
Dark Skies
Evil Dead
Hatchett III
The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia
I Spit On Your Grave 2
It's A Beautiful Day (with Japan)
The Last Exorcism Part II
Texas Chainsaw 3D
V/H/S/2
Warm Bodies
We Are What We Are
Willow Creek
World War Z

Japan:
Arcana
The Complex
It's A Beautiful Day (with US)
Miss Zombie

China:
The Chrysalis
The Deadly Strands
Lift To Hell
Midnight Train
Mysterious Island 2

Hong Kong:
Rigor Mortis
Tales From The Dark 1 & 2

S. Korea:
Horror Stories 2
Killer Toon

Thailand:
Long Weekend
Pee Mak

Other:
Dark Touch                              France/Ireland
Frankenstein's Army                 Netherlands
Mama                                      Canada/Spain


I'd hate to admit just how many of these I've actually seen. I didn't really try to see newer movies until this year and I didn't feel privileged in the slightest. We soooo need some new blood in the horror department it's getting hard to make fun of what is just sad and a repeat of everything else. Now if I was on the Satellite of Love with two faithful robots at my side...


But I'm alone. It seems a lot of other horror reviewers need to put a value on everything, whether it's a thumbs up or down, a number of stars, whatever. I don't do that for a very good reason: It over simplifies the movie. Geez, you watch for anywhere from 90 minutes to 120 minutes and you're just going to be satisfied by saying 'Two and a half stars out of five'? Pffft. You can do that just by reading the title.

I can give you my opinion of some things though, take it or leave it...

Worst Title Of The Year: The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia runs in a close first for the year. Connecticut - Georgia. Could they be further apart? Yes, but then they wouldn't be in the same Country. Massive duh. How does one story connect with the other except for the 'haunting' part? Sheesh.

Second Worst Title Of The Year: The Last Exorcism II. Exqueeze me? Can you repeat that and NOT see something wrong with that title? How can an exorcism be the last if.... <facepalm, reaches for Excedrin>

The Why Exactly Was This A Necessary Movie is a tie between I Spit On Your Grave II (which is a sequel to the REMAKE, not the original) and Texas Chainsaw 3D. And no I DON'T know if they 3D'd the first one or the REMAKE.

The Most Decent Reboot Of A Cult Movie: Evil Dead. I was prepared to hate this film, loving the original three as I do and wondering how you can even have an ED without Bruce, but except for the typical uneven action progression, kind of thin plot and predictable ending, they did a decent job - and thanks Sam for including the iconic Olds Delta 88 for us old people.

The Second Most Decent Reboot Of A Cult Movie: Whether you call this a cult classic or a franchise, this 'award' goes to Curse Of Chucky. I don't know why this was straight to video - they wanted to make Chucky back into a nasty little guy who's whole purpose was to kill instead of being a joke and they did that. Having the main character be handicapped (played actually pretty well by Brad Dourif's own daughter, Fiona) added to the tension and the mayhem. It wasn't a great movie but it didn't deserve the 'toss it in a bin' attitude.


A Movie That Was A Great Movie Once. Once.: Carrie. C'mon guys, we've had the original and best (even though I ripped it up from all the boo boo's in it as part of my review but it was still the best) in 1976, then a Broadway musical in 1988, a sequel called The Rage: Carrie 2 in 1999, a TV remake in 2002 (which they tried to make a series but thank goodness that didn't happen), and now this remake (they're not trying the 'reboot' trick with this one) which is supposed to be 'more faithful to the book'. Hmm. I read the book, the 1976 was pretty close as far as I remember - maybe I'll have to read it again before I attempt to watch this new treatment of the infamous girl with a deadly temper.


Oh yeah, that looks totally real... really.
The Only Two Zombie Movies (in the US) Of The Year Suuuuuuucked: In the number one spot of this two-movie category would have to be World War Z. A combination of Brad Pitt and a ton of CGI nonsense is NOT what we wanted for Max Brooks' famous novel - we wanted gore dammit - rotting flesh, suffering survivors - not a PG13 view of fakier than fake (my word, deal with it) piles of zombies that were... really dumb. Watching Brad Pitt and his single-expression acting was not a treat either. Ick.


The number two spot for this category is Warm Bodies. Again, PG-13 and when a parent gushes how finally she can take her children to see a zombie movie and not worry about the gore and violence we zombie lovers know to stay far far FAR away from this puke-warm treatment that is the Twilight of zombie movies. Besides, this is NOT an original idea - it was done (and done much better) in movies like Fido (2006), and even the stinkers Boy Eats Girl (2005) and A Little Bit Zombie (2012). In other words, bringing a vomit bag to the theater would be a good idea.

Whoops, sorry, wrong mama monster...
Biggest Movie Disappointment: Mama. I had high hopes for this one, being produced by Guillermo del Toro (well, he was an Executive Producer which probably means he looked at the movie and shrugged), and being described by everybody (read people trying to sell tickets) as 'extremely scary and spooky'. Pffft. 


There we go... you can understand my confusion...
When the movie started showing a father on the edge killing his coworkers and wife and taking off with his two girls, driving movie stupid on a snowy road (he was going off to kill them in the woods for some reason) and crashing, saving the girls and finding a cabin and STARTING A FIRE TO WARM THEM UP so he can, I dunno, shoot them without them shivering and ruining his aim, I immediately lost any respect for this film. The effects were... okay. But the ending was soooo obvious that I found myself just impatiently waiting for the credits.

Well that's it for the present - I'm sure I'll have more opinions soon. They seem to attack me whenever I'm trying to do something else (sleep, read, sleep some more) so prepare yourselves.


Sunday, October 27, 2013

OH GOD NOT ANOTHER 'THE HAUNTING' TYPE MOVIE AND... WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT'S THAT TITLE? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY? YOU'RE NOT KIDDING THE AUDIENCE BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY'RE STUPID, RIGHT? OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES MY EYES MY EYES MY EYES MY EYES



The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia (2013)

You know, I was gonna complain about yet another 'The Haunting' type movie, especially a sequel to one that's only (small) interesting parts were when Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek were shown in their respective parts... but to have a title giving you a supposed sequel then spread that nonsense clear down the eastern seaboard to Georgia... do they honestly think we are that dumb? Yes. Yes they do. AND they insulted us further by throwing out the tag 'Based On A True Story' which simply means that yes, there IS a state of Connecticut and yes, there is also a state of Georgia - although neither state is anywhere near the other. Oh, the 'subject' of the movie, Heidi Wyrick, supposedly existed too. The rest? Pffft...

Now if you wanna waste several hours of your time, you can look up the many books, interviews and TV shows that have already been done on this tired subject (which, may I point out, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the first movie which sucked as well) and if you wanna believe, go ahead. If you want to save yourself some time and brain cells, stay on this page, I'll make it sweet, short and relatively painless for you.

Supposedly in real life this kid was doomed from the start when she started talking to her invisible friends. Now with other kids, the family knows they grow out of doing that - but not those who 'believe' - they 'know' that their child is special. Uh huh. From another page about this particular, umm, girl: Heidi Wyrick is a gifted psychic with the ability to see and communicate with the spirits of the dead. Since she was eight years old, she has been able to see ghosts. It began in February of 1989 after her parents, Andrew and Lisa Wyrick, moved to Ellerslie when she started seeing the friendly elderly apparition of a man named Gordy who played with her on the property. 

Lisa thought this figment was an invisible friend, but eventually Heidi encountered another spirit named "Con" who appeared at the front door in a t-shirt with blood all over it. When she told her mother, she thought someone was trying to kidnap her. Andrew searched the entire neighborhood for someone who fit the description but came up empty handed. Eventually, Lisa happened to mention Con and Gordy to her sister who had just bought the house next door. As it turned out, a man named James S. Gordy was its former owner. It had once belonged to Catherine Ledford's family, and Lisa got in touch with her. She verified that James had died in 1974. Believe it or don't. I don't.

The movie: The Wyrick family moves into a historic home in the woods. It then borrows from the above paragraph pretty heavily, except it adds that her mother and aunt can do it too - you know - so you don't think it's just a troubled little girl who heard something about the place and decided to have some friends even if no one else could see them. The movie also describes things about the 'underground railroad', thus lending to the BOATS crap. Hey, real girl, real state, real slaves. What more could you ask for?

How about a freaking movie that makes sense? This is only horror in that it takes a simple story, makes it really icky and tries to tell you it's true. Long story short (I know, I know) the 'station master' for that particular choo choo station was a nasty booger of a taxidermist who decided that these running slaves were perfect for making life-like (HAH!) mannequins. Lots of them. 

So the 'ghosts' of those mannequins, plus the good and evil ghosts that little Heidi claims to see makes for a convoluted story of betrayal, nastiness and eventually of course the release of those 'spirits' to continue on their journey. Ick. Sorry, just threw up in my mouth a little. That's all there is to this sorry mess of a movie and you're welcome.