Took a look at what movies were showing the other day and didn’t see much. A friend picked this one, though, so I didn’t have to make the tough decision whether to see something mediocre or see something else mediocre. I have to say I’m not a fan of horror movies, so I went into this one expecting to really just have a bad time. It wasn’t so bad after all.

The movie was actually filmed in Manitoba (a province in Canada), not Connecticut. I had a conversation with an American friend the other day who asked if Canada has a Hollywood – I said, “No, but lots of movies are shot here.” Point proven.

Based on a supposedly true story, The Haunting in Connecticut centers around Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner), a teenager with cancer who is undergoing a treatment trial at a hospital far away from his family’s house. The several-hour-long trek between the family home and the hospital is very taxing on the whole family, so the mother opts to rent a house near the hospital until Matt’s treatment is finished. Matt immediately begins having strange experiences in the house, but brushes it off as side effects of his treatment. Matt contacts a reverend that he met at the hospital for help, and together they attempt to piece together the mystery of the house, and its past inhabitants.

Matt's mother finds him after Matt (Kyle Gallner) begins having frightening experiences

I’m not the greatest authority on what makes a good horror movie. Some that I’ve seen come at it from the gruesome/”oh wow, that’s disturbing” angle, others from the “surprise! Did I scare you?” angle, and others still from a more mysterious angle. This one seemed to employ the latter two, though the mystery was fairly easily seen through, making the “surprises” fairly predictable. There was only one plot twist that I didn’t see coming, and I thought it worked pretty well – without it it would’ve truly been a mediocre movie. In terms of being scared, there were a couple times where I have to admit I jumped, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I’m not sure if that just means I’ve grown out of being really scared by these sorts of movies, or whether the movie just wasn’t that scary.

The movie's "scare factor" was fairly decent, though I've been more scared before

Acting was well done all around, though some lines were laughable through the fault of writers, not actors. One such example has Matt and his father staring up at the stars, and his father reminisces about gazing at the stars on camping trips only to have Matt snap back with (paraphrased) “Most of the stars we see are already dead” which probably takes the cake (or the razor) for the most emo line I’ve ever heard in a movie. Aside from that an a couple other lines, the acting was really good. I thought both Virginia Madsen and Martin Donovan were excellent as Matt’s parents, and Elias Koteas probably gave the best performance of the movie as Reverend Popescu. Amanda Crew played Wendy, and added a bit of eye candy while still giving a good performance.

Elias Koteas (left) really brought the movie up with his role as Reverend Popescu

As far as “special effects” go, several times in the movie Matt sees an event from past years, and the room takes on a different hue and becomes the room of old. While this isn’t what people usually mention when they talk about special effects, I thought it was well done, especially in one transition from him standing in a normal hallway to entering an “old” room.

Wendy (Amanda Crew) adds a bit of eye candy to the movie

Overall I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie. It was scary enough, and the plot was interestingly mysterious, and though it was easily seen through, it made the movie a bit more intellectually stimulating than many other horror movies I’ve seen. The acting was top notch for this kind of movie, eliminating much of the cheesiness and “put on” feeling that other horror movies give off. I’d say this is a great, as far as horror movies go, and anyone who enjoys a good horror movie from time to time should go see this.