Customer Reviews


301 Reviews
5 star:
 (94)
4 star:
 (97)
3 star:
 (56)
2 star:
 (25)
1 star:
 (29)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


49 of 52 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Worth a watch!
The only similarity between this movie and the original 'Haunting in Connecticut' is the title. Two totally different movies.. Ghosts of Georgia actually takes place in Georgia and nothing about Connecticut is ever mentioned.

The story is based on a couple and their daughter, who just moved into a new home in the countryside of Georgia. Their daughter begins...
Published 19 months ago by Courtney

versus
27 of 31 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars To say loosely based would be an understatement.
Although I thought the movie was decent for what it is the makers of this film should not have claimed that it is based on true events, because for those of us who know the original Wyrick story this movie is no where close to their story. Well, let me take that back. There is a Lisa, Andy, Joyce, Heidi, and yes a man named Mr. Gordy, but that is where the true details...
Published 18 months ago by N. Wingate


‹ Previous | 1 231 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

49 of 52 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Worth a watch!, February 17, 2013
The only similarity between this movie and the original 'Haunting in Connecticut' is the title. Two totally different movies.. Ghosts of Georgia actually takes place in Georgia and nothing about Connecticut is ever mentioned.

The story is based on a couple and their daughter, who just moved into a new home in the countryside of Georgia. Their daughter begins seeing people or ghosts, and the story of who lived on this property years ago begins to unfold. It has to do with the underground railroad, slavery and is supposedly 'based on a true story'.

Overall it's a good film. It has a pretty good story-line and manages to keep you interested throughout, with constant ghost scenes. The movie really strives on it's good acting by Chad Michael Murray, Abigal Spencer & Emily Alyn Lind.

A true ghost story, and very well done. Definitely worth a watch!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


27 of 31 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars To say loosely based would be an understatement., March 1, 2013
By 
N. Wingate "ARTIST" (Chicago, IL United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Although I thought the movie was decent for what it is the makers of this film should not have claimed that it is based on true events, because for those of us who know the original Wyrick story this movie is no where close to their story. Well, let me take that back. There is a Lisa, Andy, Joyce, Heidi, and yes a man named Mr. Gordy, but that is where the true details end. There was never mention of the Underground Railroad in their original story, and Pine Mountain to my knowledge does not have a connection to the Underground Railroad. And the house they lived in was not centuries old like the movie, but a ranch style cinder-block home. I could have enjoyed this movie much more, if they left the Wyrick backstory out of it. And for future films, which I know they'll make, leave "The Haunting in Connecticut" out of it. This was "A Haunting in Georgia".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


21 of 24 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars surprisingly good!, February 18, 2013
I like that it was based on the under ground railroad, it was a good movie I would recommend it & im hard to impress!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


15 of 18 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Blu-ray Review: "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia", April 26, 2013
By 
First off, let's just get something out of the way. "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" never had a chance to succeed. With a paradoxical title like that, audiences are given a red flag immediately. If the producers of a movie can't decide on a better name for a film, then how could they make bigger decisions during production? Just pick a name! Was "Ghosts of Georgia" any more generic than "The Haunting in Connecticut?" The reason I sound so frustrated is because it deserves better.

The Wyrick family moves into a country house in Georgia. Their daughter, Heidi, soon begins telling her parents she talks to a man who warns they're in danger. Upon investigating, they find out their house is located on land once owned by a stationmaster of the Underground Railroad. The souls of the slaves are restless and begin haunting the family for unknown reasons.

Director Tom Elkins and writer David Coggeshall put together quite an impressive ghost story with "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia." While "based on a true story," it's obvious some creative license is utilized to spice things up. However, there are some genuinely frightening moments that will resonate with viewers. Let's just say Elkins and Coggeshall know our innermost fears and exploits them.

The entire cast of "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" put forth their best efforts and embrace their individual characters. You can tell they took the material seriously and ran with it. Chad Michael Murray plays the father of the family. Abigail Spencer takes on the role of the mother. Katee Sackhoff portrays Spencer's free-spirited sister who comes to live with them. Emily Alyn Lind is perfect in as the little girl Heidi. She embraces the role straight-faced with an air of authentic innocence.

The audio and video high definition transfers for the film are good. The picture is clean and the colors all breathe life into the visual experience. My only problem with how the movie looks are the "dimensional" sequences and the way they're shot, edited, and colored. They give it a cheap, straight-to-DVD feel that is distracting. The 5.1 surround sound mix provides all the immersive bumps, slams, jarring musical blares, screams, and haunting whispers horror fans have come to expect from these types of films.

Special features for "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" will satisfy consumers. Audio commentary is provided by Director Tom Elkins, Writer David Coggeshall, and Co-Producer Brad Kessell. There's a 10-minute featurette in which we meet the real members of the Wyrick family and hear their experiences firsthand. Deleted scenes with optional commentary, outtakes, and a theatrical trailer are included as well.

"The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" is a good supernatural tale that should have been released in theaters like its predecessor. There are nice twists to the story, the acting is good, and the scares are genuinely creepy. Maybe it's selfish, but I was looking forward to seeing the movie on a big screen in a quiet atmosphere where it could have my full attention. Seeing the movie at home will provide genre fans with a satisfying experience, too.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


14 of 17 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Scary, February 18, 2013
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Great scary movie; watched the 1st movie, too! Watched A Haunting & The Haunting series about this story; it's supposed to be true. :)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Too Light on Scares!, April 30, 2013
Let me preface this by saying I remember watching the real life documentary of this movie years ago. I was completely intrigued by the story and the documentary really gave me some frights. When I heard they were bringing the sister documentary Haunting in Connecticut to the big screen, I was hoping Georgia would get a similar treatment. Flash forward and here it is! All in all, Ghost of Georgia is a decent scary movie. The actors were all enjoyable and I knew a lot of them from various TV shows. Even the plot is decent and easy to follow, without any gaping holes to speak of. My issue was that there weren't enough frights! Haunting in Connecticut scared the bejeezus out of me, but Georgia didn't really make a blip on my scare meter. At times it got a tad too preachy when discussing slavery and the events that occurred on the Underground Railroad. It wasn't a great film, but it's worth a rental! While you're at it, check out the original documentary too! That's the real scary story!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Deeply Flawed But Has It's Moments, April 21, 2013
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Aside from the ridiculous title which is an obvious ploy to cash in on the marginal success of " The haunting in Connecticut" the "Georgia" sequel lacks the ingenuity and creepy structure of the original - and it does so in spades.

Another film supposedly based on a "true story" leaves much to be desired - especially for horror film buffs. However the effects are quite decent but alas predictable in the very real sense that there's nothing here we either don't see coming or haven't seen before.

Abigail Spencer and Chad Michael Murray do their best with the convoluted script and fractured dialogue. Young child actress Emily Lind at only four years of age actually turns in one of the more compelling performances. Director Tom Elkins creates a dismal and spooky enough atmosphere but again the story line is fractured - and even the best of the scares are unfortunately forgettable.

One shinning jewel is seeing the great Cicely Tyson who does indeed turn in albeit brief an excellent performance and perhaps for these positive points alone the movie is well worth seeing. However I recommend waiting to see it for free - which should be any time now.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Lionsgate & Gold Circle Vandalize Another Treasured Ghost Story, April 26, 2013
This is not the first time the Wyrick story has been brought to mass audiences. The ghost story shared a three-part episode of Unsolved Mysteries in February 1989 and Virginia-based New Dominion Pictures added its 94-minute IMDb viewer-rated 6.4 version in 2002. Both accounts made an effort to respect the source material in delivering an atmospheric ghost story with an overtone of the grave. So with that in mind, my question for the Wyrick family is as follows ...

Why have you not denounced this Hollywood boondoggle as a farce? How can you let Lionsgate / Gold Circle and its goofy screenwriter David Coggeshall claim that the film is "based on a true story?" How can you let them display photos of your family at the conclusion of the "film"? I would identify all the ways the film deviated from the real story, but it seems absurd to mention Lisa Wyrick's ability to see dead people (she has none) in the same paragraph as a resurrected taxidermist who lured runaway slaves into his dungeon masquerading as a station point for the Underground Railroad. The real Wyrick story is in no way rumored to be connected to the Underground Railroad. But hey, the crawl spaces in the Snedecker home (A Haunting in Connecticut) were not stuffed to the gills with corpses either.

How can anyone claim to like this albatross? Seriously. A corpse (or ghost of a corpse) abducting and assaulting the living? This is no longer the Wyrick story. This is no longer a GHOST story. This is now Creature from the Black Lagoon.

I would have laughed at all the liberties taken with this story if something vital wasn't truly lost to these disrespectful clowns at Lionsgate / Gold Circle. There is evil about this Lionsgate story, but its the ticketmaster and not some fabricated station master at the root of it. Evidence of ghosts is hard enough to come by that when we do encounter compelling stories with certain kinds of validity, we need to preserve their integrity -- not use them as the jumping off point for some wildly fantastical nonsense designed to heat some pools in Tinseltown. Make no mistake -- hack horror writer David Coggeshall took a ghost story that received significant attention from world renown scientific investigators and turned it into The Evil Dead. There's a special place in hell for people like him (probably the same level where Woody Allen put the inventor of aluminum siding in Deconstructing Harry).

And if the hack job wasn't enough, the film did not even deliver scares. How much elegance -- how much high art -- can we expect from a film given the most clumsy title in Hollywood history? Usually when you decide to contort yourself in whatever way is necessary to piggyback off another film, it's usually a critically acclaimed or commercially successful film. A Haunting in Connecticut was neither. In fact, a documentary film company from Suffolk, Virginia is more celebrated for its version of the Connecticut ghost story than the Lionsgate Hollywood studio. Ghosts of Georgia is as connected to A Haunting in Connecticut as the 2002 academy award-winning Chicago was to Woody Allen's Manhattan.

And this was no joy to watch. It was made tedious by the constant labored efforts to tickle our startle reflex -- efforts that are purely mechanical in nature (the images themselves were not interesting or scary). We're treated to our first CGI-generated apparition just 10 seconds into the film and from there it's non-stop ghosts. How a film manages to turn a phenomenon as exotic and controversial as ghosts into common termites is beyond me.

Anyway congratulations on the paycheck. Horror films like this are relatively inexpensive to make nowadays and the profit margin must have good even after coaxing just a few million at the low end of the IQ scale into the theaters. And from what I understand, Gold Circle is set to destroy yet another New Dominion psychodrama titled "The Diabolical," which will be renamed A Haunting in New York.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars BORN WITH A VEIL, May 3, 2013
Young Heidi (Emily Alyn Lind) is born with "the veil" or second sight. Her mother Lisa (Abigail Spencer) has it as well but sedates and denies it. Aunt Joyce (Katee Sackhoff) lives with them and has it also. Andy (Chad Michael Murray) the dad, doesn't have it. The family gets a deal on a home in rural Pine Mountain, Georgia, a place with picturesque Spanish Moss and no mosquitoes. It is the site of a former underground railroad station run by a taxidermist and it is haunted. Okay, I won't spoil it for you, but there shouldn't be much mystery as to where this goes.

I enjoyed the film. The ghost aspect was well done, unfortunately there was too much of it. Like Savannah, you couldn't throw a stone without hitting a ghost. What was with the levitating thing on the cover? I'm not sure what this film had to do with the first one as Connecticut seems to be more connected to King Arthur's Court than Georgia. The script was predictable, the acting was hit and miss. Abigail Spencer has done better.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. Relatively kid safe. Would have been a PG when I was growing up.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars JUST A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE MOVIE..., May 11, 2013
By 
gbv4me (B-Town, OH USA) - See all my reviews
Wow, this movie is BAD, and not in a good way. I felt like I was watching a really long made-for-TV movie intended for children or something, so I really don't understand all of the decent reviews this DVD has received so far. The acting (and the Southern accents) are beyond exaggerated, and the story itself is ridiculous. The ghosts are lame, there's no real violence or horror to be seen at all, and lots of scenes didn't even make sense (the slave ancestors just happen to show up out of thin air?! Signs & quilts from 200 years ago still look perfect & barely aged?! What the hell was up with the sister & the strings hanging out of her mouth for no reason?!) What could have been the best part of the movie revolved around taxidermy...and we don't even get to see ANY of it! This entire movie was insanely horrible, but the ending...oh my gawd, the ending! I have never seen a cheesier ending to a "supernatural/horror" movie in my life. And is it just me, or did this movie drag on for what felt like forever?! Maybe I would have appreciated this movie more at a certain age in my life (say 6 years old or younger) but adults should DEFINITELY stay away from this cartoon of a movie.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 231 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.