We Are Still Here

Reviewed by: Dare Devil Kid (DDK)

Rating: 3.3/5 stars

"We Are Still Here" is the latest iteration of people unwittingly stumbling upon an ancient haunted house, and it succeeds more than it fails, thanks largely to the competent work of first-time director Ted Geoghegan. The Director does a great job in keeping the tension high, teasing his ghastly ghosts with escalating bouts of gore infested violence to make a film that will satisfy both haunted house and gore horror fans.

That's not saying that "We Are Still Here" is up there with some of the best haunted house movies like "The Exorcist", "The Shining", "Poltergeist", or "The Conjuring", but it does offer enough decent scares and some moments of high tension to push it past pastiche. The film mixes stylish, subtle filmmaking with sudden gore effects to deliver a twisted take on the stale and anemic haunted house formula. And though it doesn't match up to the aforementioned classics, "We Are Still Here" stands on its own as a memorable and utterly creepy genre offering that deserves to be seen by horror fans that appreciate something out of the ordinary.

Overall the film disappointed me, but its one of those indie horror films that does certain things so well it kinda sticks with you. I enjoyed it but didn't blow me away like I wanted it to. I liken it that movie

"I Am a Ghost (2012)" -If you liked this go watch that.

On the pro side of things they did an amazing job emulating the atmosphere of a 70's era horror film. I really could not seem to pick out any modern day features. On the whole that seems hard to do, but the benefit is you don't have to get wrapped up in ex machina like cellphones not working for no particular reason etc. When the house creaks and utilities fail it all fits together nicely. Lots of creepiness and edginess. The OST was great.

On the Cons side of things the acting was just wooden over the top and cringe worthy. The problem is Im certain this was on purpose. A couple of actors I recall are experienced and I wasn't buying their delivery. It was very purposely scripted to be like 70s horror. It doesn't work and you end up just trudging your way through exasperatingly bad dialog to keep enjoying the rest of it. I liked that they kept the plot inferred through conversation but suddenly for no good reason they monologue a big chunk of the story midway through. It was dumb and unnecessary. Ruined the suspense for me. Lastly the "monsters" were shown too much and the gore lightened the tension so much all the creepiness was sucked out of it in the last act.

Its a solid b+ for concept and design. It sits at a 5.8 and that sounds about right to me. If they'd worked the script a little better and or tighten up the special effects this could have been a solid 7.

I love horror that takes place around houses, conjures presence and unleashes energy. It's the gust of motion I'm after, the familiar geography thrown asunder by metaphysical winds that lift walls. Blood can be there or not, for me it's inhabiting something that is changed in the course, shown to be no thing, illusory, a prank of our investment in the idea of solid reality.

And this is horror that moves fast, dwells and conjures with some purity. Oh the parts are all familiar; old house with a presence in the basement, a bereaved couple moving in, small New England town harboring a secret. Some have likened it to a b-movie of old as if that were a bad thing, in fact that's part of the whole appeal. Not that it pays homage to movies of old as if they should be enshrined in our estimation but that it taps into a kind of energy we've forgotten.

You wouldn't be amiss of thinking of it with Fulci in mind, in those brief years when he could cut portals through his own murk. It's that type of lumbering energy that assuredly emanates from below, stands outside doors and makes floors creak before washing with blood. It knowingly mines that legacy but short of forcing it to be a certain type of film.

Although haunted house flicks are ten a penny these days, the genre can occasionally throw out a decent attempt and WE ARE STILL HERE is one such film. It's a deliberately old-fashioned piece - apparently inspired by the works of Lucio Fulci - which sees a grieving couple move into a chilly old home only to discover that both the house and the townsfolk are hiding some dark secrets.

This is traditional, low key stuff for the most part, although it builds to a powerhouse climax which is jaw-dropping stuff. The ghost material is rather creepy and the only thing I didn't care for much were the séance sequences, which are too familiar to work very well these days (although they do allow for the presence of cult actors Larry Fessenden and Lisa Marie).

An all-grown-up Barbara Crampton (of RE-ANIMATOR infamy) is a good choice for the role of the protagonist, and the production as a whole has a minimalist feel which really works. The chilly New York landscape is brought to life like never before, and if by the end it is all very predictable, you can't deny that it packs a punch nonetheless.

I had high hopes for this one, especially after seeing where it was heading. Don't ask my why, cause there have been so many such productions, and still, somehow, I hoped for the best.

OK, let us begin: the movie is not bad, it has some good jump scares, OK effects, decent plot tho ever used, good actors and a cold chill surrounding. So, why does it fail? I'll tell you: the plot brings nothing new, the ending is as predictable as it gets and it acts exactly like so many before it. OK, maybe the production is better, maybe the budget was bigger and used for the best, still, the story behind it all, has nothing new to offer, just that tired old formula.

Once you see it, you'll understand. At points it even makes little sense. But more deaths had to occur therefore logic had to make a run for it. Overall, a 5, maybe even a solid 5 but nothing more.

Cheers!