|
There isn’t much I can say about “The Haunting in Connecticut”
that I haven’t already said about other films of this type,
and that in and of itself says plenty. Let’s begin with
the fact that it’s “based on a true story”--if there’s one
thing horror movies have taught me time and time again,
it’s to take such claims with more than a few grains of
salt. Honestly, does anyone believe that these events actually
happened? ***
Let the details speak for themselves; during the 1980s,
the Snedeker family claimed that their Southington, Connecticut
home was plagued by some kind of demonic presence, resulting
in a slew of supernatural occurrences. Carmen Snedeker,
the mother, claimed to have seen a number of apparitions.
It wasn’t long before she contacted paranormal experts Ed
and Lorraine Warren, who were also involved in the case
that came to be known as “The Amityville Horror”; after
nine weeks in the Snedeker house, the Warrens and their
investigating team were reportedly “touched” by unseen entities,
and the house was always ripe with the smell of decay. ***
It was eventually discovered that the house was once
a funeral home, and that one of the workers was apparently
guilty of necrophilia. The house was then “exorcised,” and
the supernatural phenomena stopped altogether. The Snedekers
moved away. Other families came and went. None of them have
made any reports of poltergeist activity. ***
All history (and its lack of credibility) aside, “The
Haunting in Connecticut” is really no more or less than
your average haunted house film, so loaded with clichés
that you can practically check them off as the story progresses.
This brings me to another subject I’ve frequently written
about in horror reviews, and that’s the historical significance
of the house itself. ***
When I reviewed “The Messengers” a few years ago, I
made reference to a plot device I like to call The House
That Something Bad Happened in. You know the setup: A family
moves into a seemingly perfect house, witnesses a series
of supernatural occurrences, and eventually learns that
the dark history of the house is to blame. “The Haunting
in Connecticut” is no exception to this rule ... or, for
that matter, any other rule horror movies tend to follow.
***
The plot, which takes place in June of 1987: Peter
and Sara Campbell (Martin Donovan and Virginia Madsen),
in spite of their financial problems, decide to move to
Connecticut so that their cancer-stricken teenage son, Matt
(Kyle Gallner), won’t have to travel as far to get treatment.
When they arrive at their new house, Matt takes residence
in the basement, which leads to a locked chamber with tinted
windows. ***
It isn’t long before he’s plagued by a series of strange,
frightening visions: his mother mopping the floor with blood
instead of water; a bearded man and a teenage boy surrounded
by mortuary equipment; eyelids being snipped off; a cadaver
with words carved into its skin; burned corpses that groan
a lot; a séance circle interrupted by a teenage boy spewing
ectoplasm. All of this somehow relates to that basement
chamber, which only opens at just such a time when it’s
most convenient. What secrets does it hold? What is Matt
seeing? And why is he seeing it? ***
The answers to all of the above are given, but who
cares? This movie is more concerned with creating atmosphere
than with telling a decent story. That being said, the atmosphere
is spot on, and I give credit to composer Robert J. Kral
for his tense score, cinematographer Adam Swica for his
eerie lighting, and production designer Alicia Keywan for
her intimidating set pieces. One of the best scenes occurs
late in the film, when phantom bursts of light emanate from
empty light bulb sockets; it effectively makes use of all
three creative elements. ***
Not quite so effective are the pop-out scares, which
are never in short supply in a haunted house. Indeed, there
are so many startling moments in this film that they eventually
lose their ability to startle. And the image of the kid
vomiting ectoplasm wasn’t frightening, although considering
the clever way it’s revealed, I had the feeling that it
was supposed to be. But that’s impossible; many photographs
have been taken showing ectoplasm emerging from mediums,
and as far as I know, all of them have been proven as hoaxes.
***
Even less effective are the characters, who seem so
passive and one-dimensional it’s as if the actors were taking
the material seriously. There’s never a moment when Matt
isn’t brooding over something, and while I understand that
cancer can have that effect, I still think it was a bit
overplayed. His parents are there only when it’s convenient
for the plot; his mother is weepy and desperate for his
recovery while his father is a detached alcoholic. ***
One of the most baffling characters is Reverend Popescu
(Elias Koteas), a cancer patient who just happens to understand
the supernatural problems Matt is having. His explanations
for what’s going on are unbelievably inane, and what’s worse,
he relies almost entirely on speculation. Such a man would
never be given the time of day. Not by any rational person,
at least. ***
|
