Post by micah on Feb 8, 2010 13:56:26 GMT -5
I watched A Haunting in Connecticut last night, a movie which was "Based On True Events." From what I can tell, the "True Events" in question refer to a fact that there is a state called Connecticut.
Granted, I may be reacting a little harshly, as I read interviews debunking the whole series of events before I watched the movie (http://www.damnedct.com/damned-interview-ray-garton/, www.damnedct.com/the-haunting-in-connecticut/, www.damnedct.com/damned-interview-daniel-farrands/) and this may have colored my opinion of the film slightly.
All in all I thought it was a rather boring, cookie-cutter story of a haunting. Some of the claims made in the film are pretty over the top, some appear to be nicked from a number of other similar films. I'll discuss these after the jump.
What surprised me was the stuff which was left out of the film. The plot follows the Snedecker family's alleged ordeals pretty closely. It does not mention that the kid to whom most of the bad stuff happened may have been fighting with drug addiction at the time. Even more telling, the movie completely ignores the various paranormal researchers (some of whom have questionable credibility) who have spent time in the house including John Zaffis, and Ed and Loraine Warren of Amytiville fame. Nor does it mention that Carmen Reed, the mother in the story, is now a "Spiritual Advisor."
My actual question is this, there have been a slew of recent movies featuring hauntings and possessions and exorcisms which profess to be based on actual events (I'm looking at you Emily Rose). Most movie goers take this statement with a healthy grain of salt. Much of Haunting is designed to increase the drama and/or terror and is made up for cinematic audiences (as the producers and screen writers admit). In your opinion, does this work? Are you more frightened by these "true" stories than you would be by a well written film? Does the possibility of the events (or at least some events) having taken place make the movie better for you?
I find that these claims actually detract from the film watching experience. I tend to be skeptical of these types of movies and this pulls me out of the immersive experience. I spend more time picking apart a "non-fiction" movie than I would a fictional movie which tells exactly the same story. In fact, had Haunting not been based on alleged events, I might have been able to suspend my disbelief and enjoy it for what it actually is, a fairly mediocre stab at a horror movie.
So what's your opinion of the "Based on True Events" statement? Is it an attempt to let people know that the supernatural actually exists? Is it a blatant marketing ploy, and if so, does it work?
Stop reading here if you don't want my spoilerific review of A Haunting in CT.
Here there be SPOILERS.
It is not at all surprising that the Warrens were in some way associated with the events which happen in this film. So much of Haunting is lifted directly from Amytiville Horror that they should have called it an Homage and gotten Rob Zombie to direct it.
Troubled family, check. Vulnerable children, check. Children who are not technically related to the parental figures, check. Alcoholic father, check. House with troubled history, SUPER CHECK. According to the film, the family moves into the house (which is an incredible financial deal--just like the Lutz') because the eldest son is battling cancer and they need to be near his treatment center. There is some interesting discussion of the fact that the kid is already half dead and that's why he sees the ghosts which I wish they had gone further with, but the whole family sees the spookies pretty quick, so this idea is abandoned early on.
The house got a SUPER CHECK because it was: a funeral parlor, a repository for memento mori, the site of a number of seances, owned by a necromancer/funeral director, employed a powerful underage medium in both the funeral home and in the seances, the location of corpse desecration (by the necromancer/funeral director), had dead bodies secreted in the walls, floors, and ceilings (because they make awesome insulation against those cold New England winters), and finally was the site of a horrible multiple homicide.
Seriously? They couldn't work in an ancient Indian burial mound, a trapped girl, and a well which a kid had fallen down?
I have my usual haunted location problems with this film. I can't help but think of the Eddie Murphy routine:
"This is a lovely house, roomy, and so cheap."
"Get out!"
"Too bad we can't stay."
The family doesn't move out when they find out that there is a funeral parlor in the basement. OK, maybe (although the fact that the place was still full of equipment, formaldehyde, etc. was more than a little unbelievable--that the family never contacted the guy they were renting from to say WTF? totally unbelievable). They don't move out, or even contact the owner when they find the huge stash of photos of dead people (I would think that I would at least call the owner and ask if he wanted them before throwing them out. That was a good way to lose your deposit.) They don't move out after they find the box full of human eyelids. They don't move out after they find out the history of the house. They don't move out after shit starts happening to them. All of this despite the fact that they owned a perfectly good, non-haunted house one state over so it's not like they didn't have a place to go.
Most of the scares were your typical boos, jump scares when something appears in the mirror or in the shadows. The same affect could be had by listening to classical music into which someone has edited a number of slamming doors at random intervals. I watched the movie with the lights off in my own basement and wasn't the least bit creeped out. Pretty disappointing.
Granted, I may be reacting a little harshly, as I read interviews debunking the whole series of events before I watched the movie (http://www.damnedct.com/damned-interview-ray-garton/, www.damnedct.com/the-haunting-in-connecticut/, www.damnedct.com/damned-interview-daniel-farrands/) and this may have colored my opinion of the film slightly.
All in all I thought it was a rather boring, cookie-cutter story of a haunting. Some of the claims made in the film are pretty over the top, some appear to be nicked from a number of other similar films. I'll discuss these after the jump.
What surprised me was the stuff which was left out of the film. The plot follows the Snedecker family's alleged ordeals pretty closely. It does not mention that the kid to whom most of the bad stuff happened may have been fighting with drug addiction at the time. Even more telling, the movie completely ignores the various paranormal researchers (some of whom have questionable credibility) who have spent time in the house including John Zaffis, and Ed and Loraine Warren of Amytiville fame. Nor does it mention that Carmen Reed, the mother in the story, is now a "Spiritual Advisor."
My actual question is this, there have been a slew of recent movies featuring hauntings and possessions and exorcisms which profess to be based on actual events (I'm looking at you Emily Rose). Most movie goers take this statement with a healthy grain of salt. Much of Haunting is designed to increase the drama and/or terror and is made up for cinematic audiences (as the producers and screen writers admit). In your opinion, does this work? Are you more frightened by these "true" stories than you would be by a well written film? Does the possibility of the events (or at least some events) having taken place make the movie better for you?
I find that these claims actually detract from the film watching experience. I tend to be skeptical of these types of movies and this pulls me out of the immersive experience. I spend more time picking apart a "non-fiction" movie than I would a fictional movie which tells exactly the same story. In fact, had Haunting not been based on alleged events, I might have been able to suspend my disbelief and enjoy it for what it actually is, a fairly mediocre stab at a horror movie.
So what's your opinion of the "Based on True Events" statement? Is it an attempt to let people know that the supernatural actually exists? Is it a blatant marketing ploy, and if so, does it work?
Stop reading here if you don't want my spoilerific review of A Haunting in CT.
Here there be SPOILERS.
It is not at all surprising that the Warrens were in some way associated with the events which happen in this film. So much of Haunting is lifted directly from Amytiville Horror that they should have called it an Homage and gotten Rob Zombie to direct it.
Troubled family, check. Vulnerable children, check. Children who are not technically related to the parental figures, check. Alcoholic father, check. House with troubled history, SUPER CHECK. According to the film, the family moves into the house (which is an incredible financial deal--just like the Lutz') because the eldest son is battling cancer and they need to be near his treatment center. There is some interesting discussion of the fact that the kid is already half dead and that's why he sees the ghosts which I wish they had gone further with, but the whole family sees the spookies pretty quick, so this idea is abandoned early on.
The house got a SUPER CHECK because it was: a funeral parlor, a repository for memento mori, the site of a number of seances, owned by a necromancer/funeral director, employed a powerful underage medium in both the funeral home and in the seances, the location of corpse desecration (by the necromancer/funeral director), had dead bodies secreted in the walls, floors, and ceilings (because they make awesome insulation against those cold New England winters), and finally was the site of a horrible multiple homicide.
Seriously? They couldn't work in an ancient Indian burial mound, a trapped girl, and a well which a kid had fallen down?
I have my usual haunted location problems with this film. I can't help but think of the Eddie Murphy routine:
"This is a lovely house, roomy, and so cheap."
"Get out!"
"Too bad we can't stay."
The family doesn't move out when they find out that there is a funeral parlor in the basement. OK, maybe (although the fact that the place was still full of equipment, formaldehyde, etc. was more than a little unbelievable--that the family never contacted the guy they were renting from to say WTF? totally unbelievable). They don't move out, or even contact the owner when they find the huge stash of photos of dead people (I would think that I would at least call the owner and ask if he wanted them before throwing them out. That was a good way to lose your deposit.) They don't move out after they find the box full of human eyelids. They don't move out after they find out the history of the house. They don't move out after shit starts happening to them. All of this despite the fact that they owned a perfectly good, non-haunted house one state over so it's not like they didn't have a place to go.
Most of the scares were your typical boos, jump scares when something appears in the mirror or in the shadows. The same affect could be had by listening to classical music into which someone has edited a number of slamming doors at random intervals. I watched the movie with the lights off in my own basement and wasn't the least bit creeped out. Pretty disappointing.
