Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Connecticut. No, Georgia. Make up your damn minds already!!


Every once in a while, your old pal Ken tends to get a little nervous about watching flicks, whether it's because of casting decisions, who might be directing, etc.  It's a very rare occasion when the actual title of the movie makes me hesitant to watch it.  Which brings me to this review of Ghosts of Georgia.  You may have noticed that I didn't call it Haunting in Connecticut 2.  Get used to it, because it's the last time I'm going to type that.  I'll hold off on the title rant until after I talk about the movie itself though, so let's begin.

A family (Andy, Lisa, and their daughter Heidi) moves to a house in Georgia.  Early on we learn two things: one, on Lisa's side of the family there's is a strong connection with the spirit world.  She possesses it, as well as her sister Joyce and Heidi.  And two, the land their new home is standing on is haunted, and everyone see them except for Andy.  It's discovered fairly early in that the property used to be a save haven for runaway slaves, called a station, back during the Underground Railroad days.  Unfortunately, things weren't as they seemed, and for reasons I won't spoil, the area has been haunted ever since.  Early in the movie Lisa's sister Joyce (played by Katee Sackhoff) arrives.  She's in the middle of a down and out period, and winds up cleaning up and moving into an abandoned RV on the property.  She doesn't have a huge impact on anything, but she wasn't dull.  And hey, it was Katee Sackhoff, enough said.

Ok, let's get into my thoughts.  There were a lot of ghost appearances throughout this movie, but most of that was as I said it was, appearances.  It was mostly walking around, or staring at somebody.  It's not until much later that any heavy spirit/human interaction takes place.  As such, this flick was not scary.  Most of the scares were predictable, and aside from some practical effects, and the look of the Station Master spirit, nothing special effects-wise. 

On the other hand, the acting was satisfactory, the setting for the movie was very pretty, and the very last scene in the movie (not counting the pictures of the real life family this movie was based on) I found oddly heartwarming.  I say oddly because I'm rarely affected in that way anymore.  Dead inside much Ken?  Lol

Ok, let's get it out of the way.  I've held it off long enough.  The title, the damn title.  I didn't want to even mention it, because it almost goes without saying, but this is such a bad title.  Why couldn't you have just called it 'Ghosts of Georgia', or 'A Haunting In Georgia' (which I personally prefer).  It's like if John Carpenter decided to make a direct sequel to 'Escape From New York', have a totally different cast, and have it take place in Miami for example.  Do you really think Carpenter would call it 'Escape From New York 2: Trapped in Miami'?  Hell, no.  Sigh, ok.  That's enough about that.  I don't want to talk about it anymore.

In the end, here's how I feel overall.  'Ghosts of Georgia' wasn't actually that bad a movie.  However, it wasn't that great either.  This is the most "on the fence" review I've had in my time here.  The acting and characters are good, but the scares and excitement factor are nearly non-existent.  The story (including the Underground Railroad back story) was pretty interesting, but the delivery of the story really left something to be desired.  I didn't feel like I suffered through the movie, but I didn't walk away with a very satisfied feeling either.  I know, I'm really not being much help this time.  But I can't help it, I've rarely finished a movie with such an unsure opinion of how I feel about it.  It's just average.  So perfectly average it's throwing me for a loop.  So it comes down to your preferences.  If you prefer a movie with good casting, and can't handle a lot of scares thrown at you, then I suggest you watch it.  If you're against disappointing story delivery, and not so much as flinching at most of the scary moments, then you should pass on it and watch either of the last two horror flicks Chuck B. and I recently reviewed. 

Movie Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Horror Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars.

- I'm Ken Bucklesworth, and I'm going to go sip some scotch like a sophisticated reviewer might do.

Follow @BoonsBuckles, @KenBucklesworth, @Tallwhitefox

No comments: