Spring Break
REVIEW: 'Haunting in Connecticut' just scary bad
2 and a half out of 5 stars
Paresh Jha
Issue date: 3/31/09 Section: Focus
More often than not, horror movies have a formulaic atmosphere to them. This is most true when it comes to films involving haunted houses and things of that nature.
"The Haunting in Connecticut" begins with promise and sets up some truly brilliant and genuinely creepy moments. However they suck themselves into the formula by relying on cheap thrills during the most critical parts of the movie. At the end of the day, it really is not a bad film but compared to the type of film it could have been, it is one of the biggest disappointments in a long time.
Like most horror stories, the film is intended to be based on a true story. If one is expected to believe all of this actually did happen in Southington, CT back in the 80s, then it is genuinely a creepy story. But then again, any good or even terrible horror movie would be genuinely terrifying in real life. Regardless, the story is your conventional haunted house plot that used to be a burial place or mortuary of sorts. The main character Matt (Kyle Gallner) is going through cancer treatment. They moved to this creepy house to be closer to the cancer clinic for Matt. Matt's weakened state somehow makes him susceptible to visits from the other world or the paranormal.
The shining moments in film are the few and far between creepy moments and two good performances by Gallner and Elias Koteas (Simone). Gallner manages to evoke some sympathy out of the audience for his condition and still maintain the position as the "hero" of the film. Managing to do that in a movie that relies heavily on cheap scare tactics is no easy task. Koteas, one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, gives an excellent yet subtle performance as a priest with a similar cancer condition to Matt, except he has the wonderful luck of getting creepy premonitions.
Yet even with such good performances, the film was buried by poor construction and directorial choices. Peter Cornwell could have used the plot's strongest points to make this film as good as "1408" or other well done haunted house films. Instead, Cornwell relied on gimmicks to evoke something from the audience. In the process, he managed to deconstruct a film that could have been great.
"The Haunting in Connecticut" begins with promise and sets up some truly brilliant and genuinely creepy moments. However they suck themselves into the formula by relying on cheap thrills during the most critical parts of the movie. At the end of the day, it really is not a bad film but compared to the type of film it could have been, it is one of the biggest disappointments in a long time.
Like most horror stories, the film is intended to be based on a true story. If one is expected to believe all of this actually did happen in Southington, CT back in the 80s, then it is genuinely a creepy story. But then again, any good or even terrible horror movie would be genuinely terrifying in real life. Regardless, the story is your conventional haunted house plot that used to be a burial place or mortuary of sorts. The main character Matt (Kyle Gallner) is going through cancer treatment. They moved to this creepy house to be closer to the cancer clinic for Matt. Matt's weakened state somehow makes him susceptible to visits from the other world or the paranormal.
The shining moments in film are the few and far between creepy moments and two good performances by Gallner and Elias Koteas (Simone). Gallner manages to evoke some sympathy out of the audience for his condition and still maintain the position as the "hero" of the film. Managing to do that in a movie that relies heavily on cheap scare tactics is no easy task. Koteas, one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, gives an excellent yet subtle performance as a priest with a similar cancer condition to Matt, except he has the wonderful luck of getting creepy premonitions.
Yet even with such good performances, the film was buried by poor construction and directorial choices. Peter Cornwell could have used the plot's strongest points to make this film as good as "1408" or other well done haunted house films. Instead, Cornwell relied on gimmicks to evoke something from the audience. In the process, he managed to deconstruct a film that could have been great.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 5
Paidon Young
posted 3/31/09 @ 11:23 AM EST
I think the people who review these types of movies are the ones who are the skeptics of the Paranormal. They don't think this is real so they give it a bad review. (Continued…)
G
posted 3/31/09 @ 1:20 PM EST
I agree with the person above. The only reason why Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is considered one of the worst movies ever is because the reviewers didn't believe in Santa Claus or martians. (Continued…)
Grad student guy
posted 3/31/09 @ 6:57 PM EST
Paidon:
Dude, I grew up in Southington. I knew the owner of the house--he said the family was running a lotto scam among other things and had problems keeping up with the rent (family also had issues with drugs/alcohol and possibly domestic violence). (Continued…)
fv
posted 3/31/09 @ 9:45 PM EST
the movie was honestly very good and i agree Paidon Young..its tru people that dont belive in paranormal think its false and stupid...but its not..if someone asked me about the movie i would suggest to watch it because its worth the 10 bucks. (Continued…)
Post a Comment