Blu-Ray Review: THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT (Lionsgate)

Mike LoManaco

Studio Name: Lionsgate (Gold Circle Films/Integrated Films)
MPAA Rating: Unrated/PG-13 (UNRATED Version Reviewed)
Disc/Transfer Information: 1080p High Definition; 2.35:1 Widescreen
Video Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 (Tested in DTS Core in 5.1)
Director: Peter Cornwell
Starring Cast: Virginia Madsen, Kyle Gallner, Martin Donovan


BASED ON TRUE EVENTS.



LoMANACO'S PLOT ANALYSIS:

Before I get into the formalities regarding Haunting in Connecticut, let me first say that I had an unsettling experience with the Blu-ray Disc after trying to shut it off...ghosts in my player, perhaps?

I turned on the special features section of the disc after watching the film, to get a better understanding on the background of the "true" case, and when attempting to stop the playback of the disc during "The Anatomy of a Haunting" feature, my player would not let me enable any functions -- the disc wouldn't stop, fast forward, pause, nothing. After multiple pressings on my remote, I finally got a message from the Panasonic that "The Disc May Be Defective...Powering Off..." and it automatically shut the power of the player down. This is the FIRST Blu-ray to do this since I owning the 'BD10A, and I am curious if it happens to others playing this disc -- please report back if it does.

What I also couldn't figure out is why Lionsgate included Blu-ray and DVD trailers for The Eye and Cabin Fever when these are ancient compared to the feature presentation. But that's something I don't even think the evil spirits can explain to me.


I wanted to really like this film. I missed it in theaters, and I was on a release day schedule for the BD viewing -- I'm a fan of this genre. Thinking this was going to be along the lines of Lionsgate's other little shocker with similar subject matter, An American Haunting, I went into this with high expectations. Whenever a studio splashes the moniker of "Based on the True Story" across a marketing campaign, it can often be taken with a grain of salt -- my fianc

Mike LoManaco

HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT REVIEW CONTINUED...

VIDEO QUALITY: How Does the Disc Look?

This didn't fare well. Some shots on this 1080p encode look clean and detailed, but for the most part, this was a poor, shoddy job by Lionsgate. There's a dirty, nasty, noisy grain that litters most of the transfer, and it gets so thick at certain points it makes the image collapse into horrid softness. Some problems seem to come and go; for the most part, outdoor, sunlit sequences exhibit a nice high definition look -- you know, bright greens on the leaves, detailed rocks and pebbles on the roads...but as soon as the sequence moves indoors and into the dark shadows, the image collapses into the noisy, static-like grain, and some scenes get really bad. I cannot say anything really positive about the video transfer of this disc. The film just didn't look good.

AUDIO QUALITY: How Does the Disc Sound?

Here we are presented with a Master Audio 7.1 sound mix -- yes, you read that right -- and we're not even talking about a Tyler Perry film! Interestingly enough, this was the first Blu-ray title I have viewed to include a Master Audio sound clip trailer in the beginning -- much like the "DTS DIGITAL AUDIO" clip before the Superbit DVD features, Haunting in Connecticut featured a Master Audio intro clip. Not very involving or dramatic, but it was there.

Now, a few things about the soundtrack. Because of my hardware limitations, I was forced, as usual, to run this at its core DTS mix, and, additionally, it was reduced to a 5.1 array because that's my setup. I don't know if these elements combined to make the experience what it was, but this mix didn't impress me all that much believe it or not. From the get go, dialogue is low in the mix, as if a blanket is over the center channel, and there wasn't that much visceral punch to the track. In fact, Lionsgate's DVD version of An American Haunting includes a Dolby EX mix that's more aggressive, in my opinion. The track isn't "poor" per se, and it's certainly not as bad as the video transfer, but it could have been more involving. Surround cues are used sparingly and there's presence to the LFE track, but not as much as you'd expect. I was a bit disappointed with Haunting in Connecticut's audio mix. But, again, as I said, it may have been the combination of reducing it to a core DTS signal and feeding only 5.1 channels.

MY SUMMARY:

Hard to call this one; it had all the great makings of one of those "based on a true story" thriller/shockers, but something just gets confusing and campy from the middle on. A must for fans of the genre, for at least a viewing out of curiosity. My belief is that it will unfortunately go forgotten like so many other titles in this genre after some time passes, like Amityville Horror and American Haunting or even Blair Witch.

MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Between the poor video transfer and iffy excitement to the plot, I can't recommend this one as a buy on Blu. By all means rent it, but you may want to compare it to the standard DVD before committing to a purchase because I have a feeling the DVD may be cleaner and easier to look at. I didn't have a DVD copy on hand to compare.

danz1906

I saw it on SD DVD,the movie was ok-the Audio was pretty good.

wutadumsn23

Just went out and bought this on Blu-Ray last night. Hopefully get a chace to watch it after work today. I am originally from Ct. and am familiar with the story and the house that this movie is based on, so hopefully it will be good.

kuntasensei

I got dragged by an evil woman to see this in the theater despite my insistence that it would be better to wait for video. We both hated it. The movie spends a whole lot of time trying to build mood, but nothing particularly scary ever happens. I think it might have been a decent movie in the hands of more capable people, because the real story of these people is rather interesting... but ultimately, this is B-grade schlock at best.

Mike LoManaco

danz1906 wrote: »

I saw it on SD DVD,the movie was ok-the Audio was pretty good.

Hey Danz,

I happened to get a Blu-ray copy for review from an editor of mine, otherwise I would have probably been assigned the standard DVD as well; the video transfer on the Blu-ray was atrocious, though. I haven't seen such a hazy, noisy BD transfer since, perhaps, "88 Minutes" from TriStar.

Mike LoManaco

wutadumsn23 wrote: »

Just went out and bought this on Blu-Ray last night. Hopefully get a chace to watch it after work today. I am originally from Ct. and am familiar with the story and the house that this movie is based on, so hopefully it will be good.

Hey '23!

Much like me being very close to the Amityville case, that's interesting that you're familiar with this story...I wish you wouldn't have blind-bought this though on Blu because the video is pretty lacking. It's not pretty to look at in most parts; what made you want to blind buy this to begin with, may I ask? Was it the connection to the story, as you mentioned?

Thanks for commenting!

wutadumsn23

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Hey '23!

Much like me being very close to the Amityville case, that's interesting that you're familiar with this story...I wish you wouldn't have blind-bought this though on Blu because the video is pretty lacking. It's not pretty to look at in most parts; what made you want to blind buy this to begin with, may I ask? Was it the connection to the story, as you mentioned?

Thanks for commenting!

I don't regret buying it without watching it first, I was actually pretty happy with the movie. Not the best movie I have seen, but it was pretty good. My wife actually sent me to buy it, probably because of my connection to the story as you mentioned, but still not the worst $25 I have ever spent, lol. The audio was pretty lacking for a DTS HD Master Audio 7.1 title, but overall it was a pretty good flick, IMO.

danz1906

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Hey Danz,

I happened to get a Blu-ray copy for review from an editor of mine, otherwise I would have probably been assigned the standard DVD as well; the video transfer on the Blu-ray was atrocious, though. I haven't seen such a hazy, noisy BD transfer since, perhaps, "88 Minutes" from TriStar.

I just got a Panasonic dmp-bd80 Blu-Ray player yesterday:D
Thanks for another great review-I will pass on watching the Blu-Ray
copy of this Movie.

Mike LoManaco

wutadumsn23 wrote: »

I don't regret buying it without watching it first, I was actually pretty happy with the movie.

Okay, fair enough; I just have something against blind buying because of the high prices of these discs...luckily, I get some sent to me as assignments for review, but I have to send these back of course. Otherwise, I like to rent titles I never saw in theaters before blind buying; I have blind bought before when I KNOW I will like a flick...for example, I liked Vincent Price in the original House on Haunted Hill, so I blind bought the version of House of Wax he was in on DVD, and loved that flick from that point on. Same thing with the original "The Haunting" and some others.

When you blind buy titles, are there ever any times you regret the purchase? If you don't like the title, what do you do -- you still keep it on your shelf?

Not the best movie I have seen, but it was pretty good.

Oh, DEFINITELY not the best film I have ever seen, either, nor the best ever made, but I was just expecting more from it based on the trailers. As I said in the review, I thought Lionsgate would follow up their taught, kinetic ghost thriller "An American Haunting" with another good shocker in "Haunting in Connecticut" but something just fell short for me on this one. I expected more.

My wife actually sent me to buy it, probably because of my connection to the story as you mentioned, but still not the worst $25 I have ever spent, lol.

Did you not want to see it without her sending you to buy it? :eek:

The audio was pretty lacking for a DTS HD Master Audio 7.1 title, but overall it was a pretty good flick, IMO.

Indeed. I agree about the audio, as evidenced in my "Audio Quality" perspective; but I had two handicaps which I'm not sure you had -- first, I was running the track's core DTS mix, not the Master Audio signal, and second, the track was kind of "collapsed" from 7.1 to 5.1 because of my setup. I am uncertain if this affected audio quality at all, but the track didn't impress me all that much.

Were you running a 5.1 setup, 6.1 setup or full 7.1? Were you listening to the full-blown Master Audio mix?

You know, studios really need to get their **** together in terms of quality control on these new releases because based on what they charge, there shouldn't be sub-standard exhibitions like this (unless there were issues in the photopgraphy of the film, director's intentions, etc.) -- aside from the horrendous video quality this disc displayed, there were issues which made my player lock up and power off. It's ridiculous for those spending the full $35 or so in a retail store on release day. :rolleyes:

Mike LoManaco

danz1906 wrote: »

I just got a Panasonic dmp-bd80 Blu-Ray player yesterday:D

Congrats! Hope you enjoy it! Is it replacing another player you previously had, or is this your first BD player?

When you get a chance -- because I happen to be in the market for a new player -- let me know how the DVD upconversion performance is on the new Panny...

Thanks for another great review-I will pass on watching the Blu-Ray
copy of this Movie.

You are very welcome, and thank you for the kind words and for reading! Indeed, if you want to see this title, try and find the standard DVD edition -- it may fare better.

WHOOPS! EDIT: Re-read what you originally said, and you already saw it on DVD -- sorry.

Thanks Danz!

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

You know, studios really need to get their **** together in terms of quality control on these new releases because based on what they charge, there shouldn't be sub-standard exhibitions like this (unless there were issues in the photopgraphy of the film, director's intentions, etc.) -- aside from the horrendous video quality this disc displayed, there were issues which made my player lock up and power off. It's ridiculous for those spending the full $35 or so in a retail store on release day. :rolleyes:

I think this may be a garbage-in/garbage-out situation. I saw this in the theater and it was a mess there too. Lots of washed out scenes, some shots that seemed like they weren't color matched, and it looked like the whole thing was shot on cheap cameras (and not in that "we're doing this intentionally as a stylistic choice" kind of way). It very much came across as a B-grade movie that a studio was trying to pass off as a major release. Just sayin'... There may not have been much they could have done with the transfer to BD\DVD.

CaligulaPolk

i DONT THINK ITS ACTUALLY A TRUE STORY!

BUT MY WI FE AND I ENJOYED THIS MOVIE!

kuntasensei

It's not a true story. It's "based on true events". That means "Yeah, some of this stuff happened, but we filled in the gaps with complete bulls#!t."

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

I think this may be a garbage-in/garbage-out situation. I saw this in the theater and it was a mess there too. Lots of washed out scenes, some shots that seemed like they weren't color matched, and it looked like the whole thing was shot on cheap cameras (and not in that "we're doing this intentionally as a stylistic choice" kind of way). It very much came across as a B-grade movie that a studio was trying to pass off as a major release. Just sayin'... There may not have been much they could have done with the transfer to BD\DVD.

Agreed, and although I didn't see the film in theaters, that's what I was trying to say with regards to "director's intent" or "issues with photography" etc. Many times what was "laid down" as the actual film is what transfers to the DVD and Blu-ray, with the Blu-ray showing even more of the negative elements due to the higher resolution. SOMETIMES it IS a studio issue though when a transfer doesn't look right -- usually, you'll know it because there are "compression" and "noise" issues. With Haunting in Connecticut, it was difficult to tell -- although if it looked soft, washed out and color mismatched in theaters, it probably was a lousy master Lionsgate was working with.

With regard to a B-grade film the studio was attempting to pass off as a major release, Lionsgate's other "haunted house" opus, "An American Haunting," had that feel too -- but Lionsgate isn't a big studio to begin with. Their material is mainly direct to video, although they have grown substantially in the past few years with theatrical releases.

Mike LoManaco

CaligulaPolk wrote: »

i DONT THINK ITS ACTUALLY A TRUE STORY!

BUT MY WI FE AND I ENJOYED THIS MOVIE!

It was based on an almost linearlly parallel case of a real family that "went through" "paranormal events" in a farmhouse they rented in Connecticut after their real son was being treated for cancer. While '**** feels most of it was filled in with "bull***t" and many times this is true, there's an uncanny resemblance to the actual story played here...there WAS a funeral home on this house's property where "sacrificial" events took place and which subsequently lead to "haunting"-like phenomenon when the family moved in; this is eerily parallel to the "Amityville Horror" case, which I did a GREAT deal of research on. While much of what the Lutzes and subsequently the De Feo surviving relatives said about what was in that Dutch Colonial house in Long Island, New York was proven to simply not have happened in the way THEY said it did, there was no doubt some "bad karma" in that home after the six murders took place in the 1970s. THAT cause some kind of "presence" to be "felt" by the Lutz family when they took over the house a year after the murders -- was this a "paranormal" presence? There's no way to really say unless we were there, but there WAS something that caused a negative impression throughout the home and the Lutz's lives. I believe the same thing occurred with the family in "Haunting in Connecticut."

wutadumsn23

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Okay, fair enough; I just have something against blind buying because of the high prices of these discs...luckily, I get some sent to me as assignments for review, but I have to send these back of course. Otherwise, I like to rent titles I never saw in theaters before blind buying; I have blind bought before when I KNOW I will like a flick...for example, I liked Vincent Price in the original House on Haunted Hill, so I blind bought the version of House of Wax he was in on DVD, and loved that flick from that point on. Same thing with the original "The Haunting" and some others.

When you blind buy titles, are there ever any times you regret the purchase? If you don't like the title, what do you do -- you still keep it on your shelf?



Oh, DEFINITELY not the best film I have ever seen, either, nor the best ever made, but I was just expecting more from it based on the trailers. As I said in the review, I thought Lionsgate would follow up their taught, kinetic ghost thriller "An American Haunting" with another good shocker in "Haunting in Connecticut" but something just fell short for me on this one. I expected more.



Did you not want to see it without her sending you to buy it? :eek:



Indeed. I agree about the audio, as evidenced in my "Audio Quality" perspective; but I had two handicaps which I'm not sure you had -- first, I was running the track's core DTS mix, not the Master Audio signal, and second, the track was kind of "collapsed" from 7.1 to 5.1 because of my setup. I am uncertain if this affected audio quality at all, but the track didn't impress me all that much.

Were you running a 5.1 setup, 6.1 setup or full 7.1? Were you listening to the full-blown Master Audio mix?

You know, studios really need to get their **** together in terms of quality control on these new releases because based on what they charge, there shouldn't be sub-standard exhibitions like this (unless there were issues in the photopgraphy of the film, director's intentions, etc.) -- aside from the horrendous video quality this disc displayed, there were issues which made my player lock up and power off. It's ridiculous for those spending the full $35 or so in a retail store on release day. :rolleyes:

I currently run a 5.1 setup (see sig.) and while it may or may not have been the "dumbing down" effect from 7.1 to 5.1 it still wasn't all that and I have heard 7.1 before and didn't notice a big diff. (Saw V for example was awesome audio-wise) Either way, was still worth watching, and while I have regretted "blind buys" in the past this one will not make the list, lol.

nguyendot

I agree with the video quality of the review. It fell on its face with horrible dark scene quality. My tv/player had green patches everywhere that I do not normally see on any other movies.

Mike LoManaco

nguyendot wrote: »

I agree with the video quality of the review. It fell on its face with horrible dark scene quality. My tv/player had green patches everywhere that I do not normally see on any other movies.

I didn't experience any of the green patches, but the dark sequence quality was horrifying...:eek:

FEARnet

kuntasensei wrote: »

It's not a true story. It's "based on true events". That means "Yeah, some of this stuff happened, but we filled in the gaps with complete bulls#!t."

Yeah, that's generally how these things go. But it is fun to be scared -- "The Exorcist" is one of my all-time favorite flicks-- and who knows what's real and what's not. Still can be a real good trip if the movie is well done!

I think this happens on every horror movie set when the crew and talent get into the mindset, but here's a clip of the cast of the film talking about being haunted while making the picture.

http://www.fearnet.com/videos/b16192_haunting_in_connecticut_ndash.html

Audio was good on this one. Movie itself -- well, it's no "Exorcist."

Best,

Jack with FEARnet

hearingimpared

Welcome to Club Polk Jack.

Mike LoManaco

FEARnet wrote: »

Yeah, that's generally how these things go. But it is fun to be scared -- "The Exorcist" is one of my all-time favorite flicks-- and who knows what's real and what's not. Still can be a real good trip if the movie is well done!

I think this happens on every horror movie set when the crew and talent get into the mindset, but here's a clip of the cast of the film talking about being haunted while making the picture.

http://www.fearnet.com/videos/b16192_haunting_in_connecticut_ndash.html

Audio was good on this one. Movie itself -- well, it's no "Exorcist."

Best,

Jack with FEARnet

The Exorcist is one of my all-time favorite films, too, and as for what was real and what wasn't, on that one, William Peter Blatty, the author of the book, based the story on a case that was documented and authorized by the Catholic Church, but it was of a young boy, not a girl. The case had all the signs of classic "possession" -- yet at the same time could have been coughed up to schizophrenia, paranoid dellusional syndrome or a host of other mental diseases, although the boy experienced, from what I have read, much of what "Regan MacNeil" (Linda Blair) exhibited in the film...wild vomiting, speaking in other languages and facial contortions which were not of this world.

Do you really work for FEARnet, Jack?