‘Haunting in Connecticut 2′ Trailer & Poster: No Ectoplasmic Vomiting

Published 2 years ago by , Updated March 9th, 2013 at 2:03 pm,

Who else totally forgot there was a Haunting in Connecticut sequel in the works? The 2009 original had all the potential in the world, having roots in the true experience of the Snedekers family from back in the 1980s. However, the film version took the particularly creepy environment and visuals and bogged them down with run-of-the-mill genre scares. Still, the film managed to accumulate a worldwide total of $77.5 million and apparently that was enough to warrant a second go-around.

IGN debuted The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia’s very first poster accompanied by the film’s official synopsis:

A young family is tormented by the horrors of the past in The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia, a chilling new film based on a true story from the producers of The Haunting in Connecticut.

Building on the terror of A Haunting in Connecticut, this horrifying tale traces a young family’s nightmarish descent into a centuries-old Southern hell. When Andy Wyrick (Chad Michael Murray, House of Wax) moves his wife Lisa (Abigail Spencer, TV’s Mad Men) and daughter Heidi to an historic home in Georgia, they quickly discover they are not the house’s only inhabitants. Joined by Lisa’s free-spirited sister, Joyce (Katee Sackhoff, TV’s Battlestar Galactica), the family soon comes face-to-face with a bone-chilling mystery born of a deranged desire…a haunting secret rising from underground and threatening to bring down anyone in its path.

Nothing too original, but also nothing too terrible. If you’re looking at the synopsis and the synopsis alone, the only thing that might suggest The Haunting in Connecticut 2 is hopeless is former heartthrob turned lame TV movie star, Chad Michael Murray. The guy’s a decent actor, but he isn’t in Tree Hill anymore, and seeing his name at the top of this roster quite likely designates the film as a straight-to-DVD candidate.

The Haunting In Connecticut 2 Ghosts of Georgia Poster 570x844 Haunting in Connecticut 2 Trailer & Poster: No Ectoplasmic Vomiting
Similarly, the poster isn’t all that bad, but do you remember that horrifying motion poster for the first film? As unappealing as the full feature is, it’s tough to forget the impression that image made, so the fact that this rendering isn’t all that creepy, let alone original, really sinks the sequel even further.

Ready for the ultimate proof The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia will be as ridiculous as that title? Yahoo! Movies just unveiled the film’s trailer (video up top) and, yet again, it looks like the filmmakers have taken a truly creepy and rather intriguing backstory and spoiled it with the typical use-and-abuse horror tactics. We’ve got more than enough ghost stories about homes with violent pasts, but the Wyricks moving into one with a creepy history stemming from the horrors of the time of slavery is a rather fresh idea. Well, that is if the concept is handled delicately. This trailer, on the other hand, suggests director Tom Elkins did a clunky job, slopping together the disturbing scenario with silly attempts to scare via ghosts that don’t even pop up out of nowhere for a decent jump scare, rather ones that just stand there – or sit on a swing.

Still not convinced The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia is worth skipping? Sure enough, the film is only seeing a limited release on February 1, 2013 while simultaneously coming to VOD platforms. However, with a third film already in the works, The Haunting in New York (via Variety), it actually does make sense for Golden Circle Films to use the second film to make the descent into turning the series into a straight-to-DVD staple. And who could blame them? There’s certainly a market for home video horror.


Sources: IGN, Yahoo! Movies, Variety

Follow Perri on Twitter @PNemiroff.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Hold on, a Haunting in Connecticut: Ghosts of Georgia? That’s geographically stupid.

    • Haha!! I was thinking the same thing.
      I realize they want to keep the “brand” name but this is pretty dumb…

    • Georgia is also a female’s name.

      • Haha!

    • Maybe the ghosts came from Georgia to haunt people in Connecticut ;) lol

  2. So if I am interpreting this correctly, they felt a need to slap people over the head with the fact that this is done by the same people as the previous one with Connecticut 2 even though it neither takes place in the state of or has any connection to the previous film.

    Then, to top all that off, they seem to have excised Mr. Gordy from the story entirely (even though there is an obvious homage to the entity with some mysterious guy placing his hand on the girls shoulder) and supplanted his bulk of the story with some arbitrary slave times underground railroad motif and being lost in underground caverns that did not play into the events this film is based on at all.

    I suppose the bleeding man the little girl would see come to the door, the related neighbors, or the eventual little sister that also saw things has been removed as well, which I expected since the first film removed about half the family (including the important cousin) and the other people that also roomed in the house (but never saw anything and had been removed from the ‘A Haunting’ episode it was based on).

    I know any “based on” claims have always been tentative at best, but creating an entire other story around “one time, in Georgia, some people claim they experienced a haunting” is a bit much. Why not just call it something else?

  3. Perri Nemiroff:

    with all due respect, this article about the film seems to carry a negative bias against it. What’s wrong with “cheap” scares? They’re effective. What’s wrong with ghosts that stand there? They’re creepy. And who says all those things negate a well-crafted story?

    I take it you didn’t like A Haunting In Connecticut, and perhaps that is coloring your view of this film. I personally liked A Haunting in Connecticut, however. I thought all the scares were good, and the story as well. It didn’t have to be Oscar-worthy to be a good, fun movie.

    I will say that yes, the title is beyond ridiculous though. Which is very, very unfortunate.

    Anyway, I think this looks like probably a decent horror ride, as they come.

    • The original Haunting in Connecticut was about as generic as horror films come. The second one is coming straight to DVD with a few theatrical releases (probably 100 theaters if they’re lucky). Of course there is going to be a negative tone to it, the trailer looks generic, the original was generic, and it’s going straight to dvd.

  4. Wow. I live close to and know the people that this movie is “Based” on. Lmao, I’ll stick with the documentary!

  5. Hehe my name is Georgia (nit kidding) XD

  6. The first one was aweet and scary hopefully this one is better ! : )

  7. Wow, finally a scary movie with a happy ending.