![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "Johnny Betts is a rude 'abnoxious' jerk who needs to be 'punced' in the face."- A grammatically-challenged non-fan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kid on medication + living in former funeral home = craziness ensues.
Carmen Snedeker *ahem*, I mean "Sara Campbell" (Madsen) is tired of driving her cancer-stricken son (Gallner)
from New York to Connecticut every day for treatment. Getting home at 4:00 AM just isn't much fun for
anybody. So she decides to look for a home close to the hospital where Matt is receiving his experimental
treatments.
During her search she stumbles upon a spacious old house that looks to be PERFECT! There's just one little hitch - it was once a funeral home. Ah well, the rent is super cheap, so Sara decides she'll make an "executive decision" to buy the house without mentioning to anybody (least of all her husband) the house's history. If you've ever seen a horror movie before then you can probably surmise that things proceed to get all jacked up.
BARELY based on a true story.
A family moves into a former funeral home and experiences all sorts of demonic activity! Great premise,
right? I first heard about the story a few years ago when I was looking for "based on a true story" scary
books to read. My search led me to Ray Garton's In a Dark Place.The book was effectively creepy, but its believability was beyond grasp. I read later that Garton admitted a lot of the story was fictionalized. Big surprise. According to Garton, the family members couldn't keep their stories straight, and when he went to self-proclaimed demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren with his concerns, he was told that the family was crazy and he just needed to "make it up and make it scary." Well, a couple of years ago the Discovery Channel had a "documentary" on the "haunting" called A Haunting in Connecticut. It wasn't quite as fanciful as the book, and it laid a solid framework for what could make a good horror movie if done correctly. Unfortunately, The Haunting in Connecticut doesn't handle the story correctly. But what can you expect when the only aspects of the "true story" that carry over are the kid having cancer and the house formerly being a funeral home? The film starts off solidly enough. The premise is perfect, and the initial scares are handled with gentle subtlety - dark figures briefly seen as reflections, unsettling noises in the night, and shadows that may or may not be explainable. I liked how the film approached the supernatural realm while keeping one foot firmly in the natural. The audience is even left to reason that Matt's visions could just be a side-effect of the experimental medication he's taking. But once the kid in Matt's vision starts vomiting ectoplasm, and the over-the-top climax hits, well, the balloon pops and all tension leaks out. Had the film stuck to the supposed "true events" then it would have had a much more interesting and disturbing story to tell. Instead, flamboyance sideswiped subtlety and apathy overtook intrigue. The Haunting in Connecticut is one of those horror films that displays a few effectively creepy moments but fails to reach the potential of its premise. Technically speaking, it's not a horrible film. However, if somebody were to accuse it of being such, you wouldn't have much on which to argue against their accusation. Make sense? Well, neither does the film's resolution, so we'll call it a wash.
You think Red Bull was a sponsor?
Mama wouldn't be too offended by the content.
PG-13 for some intense sequences of terror and disturbing images, The Haunting in Connecticut
contains very little objectionable material. Sure, you shouldn't bring your young kids who scare easily,
but there's no profanity or nudity. Some of the images of corpses and a kid vomiting ectoplasm aren't
visuals everybody needs or wants to see, so use your own judgment there.
What you see is what you get.
Watch the trailer, read my review, and be confident that you know exactly what to expect.
Rental.
Despite an effective beginning and a few genuinely creepy moments, The Haunting in Connecticut fails
to go the distance and doesn't warrant spending $9 a pop. Save it for a rental, and if you're really
interested in a more "grounded" look at this story then keep an eye out for the Discovery Channel's
A Haunting in Connecticut.
|
HOME PAGE ![]() Yes Man Transporter 3 Four Christmases Twilight Quantum of Solace Ghouls Eagle Eye Righteous Kill Tropic Thunder ![]() Weekend Results: 1. Watchmen($55,214,334) 2. Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail($8,532,412) 3. Taken($7,334,814) 4. Slumdog Millionaire($6,808,383) 5. Paul Blart: Mall Cop($4,146,316) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2004 The Movie Mark. All Rights Reserved. No reproduction of these reviews or any of the original material on this site is allowed without prior permission from Johnny Betts. Comply or suffer the consequences of Johnny's size 11 biker boot. Wanna be a Movie Mark? Send Johnny Betts an email (johnny_betts@hotmail.com) to be added to the list or complete: The Movie Mark Questionnaire.
|
|
||||||