The Haunting in Georgia

I wonder if it made sense for the movie "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" to be related to the film "The Haunting in Connecticut". That first film was such a hit that it became a marketing brand, right? Well, the truth is that the first film didn't earn that much, maybe because of the real events it was based on. But this is suffering, as almost every five minutes you start feeling like you're watching a completely different movie. (23.01.2015)

It has nothing to do with the story of the first part, actually, it has nothing to do with Connecticut as such. Sure, they had to carry on with the brand, but would it have been such a big problem to call the sequel The Haunting of Georgia (as it was originally supposed to)? They could easily keep the style and make another 48 parts. It’s silly, but this lack of logic really pisses me off. Stories from Czechia 2: What happened in Belgium. OMG. /// Well, now to the point. I liked it between two and three stars, but since I gave three stars to the better first part, I must pick the lower rating. The director is eager and competent and you don’t get bored. Maybe his eagerness to scare is too much, the constant showing of the ghosts (which aren’t very scary to begin with), together with the micro flashbacks and the alternation of colour filters become really annoying after some time. But I’d lie if I said it doesn’t work at all, it does here and there. My biggest complaint, though, is that it’s pretty silly overall, and unoriginal (and I’m not asking for anything great, something creative like the “ectoplasm” from the first part would have been enough). It’s a shame, a bit more and it could have been a pleasant surprise. I was expecting much worse. (02.02.2013)