ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,7/10
21 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn the cold, wintery fields of New England, a lonely old house wakes up every thirty years - and demands a sacrifice.In the cold, wintery fields of New England, a lonely old house wakes up every thirty years - and demands a sacrifice.In the cold, wintery fields of New England, a lonely old house wakes up every thirty years - and demands a sacrifice.
- Prix
- 1 victoire et 21 nominations au total
Michael Patrick Nicholson
- Harry Lewis
- (as Michael Patrick)
Guy Gane
- Lassander Dagmar
- (as Guy Gane III)
Avis en vedette
The plot is solid enough. The movie is entertaining enough also meaning that if you want something new to watch in the horror genre- this movie is just entertaining enough, The lore could have been improved upon, and with some more back story, perhaps even some flashbacks with some creative storytelling and this film could have been a gem.
The movie at just 84 minutes doesn't provide enough time to the viewer to understand what this evil is that has descended on this family. We are told a few bits a pieces about he first owner who ran a funeral parlour out of this home. Something about the owner Dagmar hiding or selling the bodies and that the house was built on some ancient evil. Other than all that we are left to guess at what the heck the rest of the back story is and what it has to do with the old boiler downstairs.
If only they took another 15 minutes of screen time to flesh out the sordid past and we could have left this movie more satisfied with a true understanding of the houses evil past, where and why and how.
What we are left with is a gore fest with jump scares that are really nothing new. It's just a good old fashioned horror with a 2 star rating.
The movie at just 84 minutes doesn't provide enough time to the viewer to understand what this evil is that has descended on this family. We are told a few bits a pieces about he first owner who ran a funeral parlour out of this home. Something about the owner Dagmar hiding or selling the bodies and that the house was built on some ancient evil. Other than all that we are left to guess at what the heck the rest of the back story is and what it has to do with the old boiler downstairs.
If only they took another 15 minutes of screen time to flesh out the sordid past and we could have left this movie more satisfied with a true understanding of the houses evil past, where and why and how.
What we are left with is a gore fest with jump scares that are really nothing new. It's just a good old fashioned horror with a 2 star rating.
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!
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!
In the 80's, Paul Sacchetti and his wife Anne move to rural New England after the death of their son Bobby. Their new home is haunted. Their psychic friends come over for a visit.
I really like the first apparition. It's simple and old fashion. It really fits the 80's time period. It feels like an old horror. I'm less enamor with the CGI ghosts. They're not that bad, but I still want less of them. I like real people dressed in ghost costumes. I want more real effects so that it feels more like the 80's horror. The actors are lesser known, but the leads are mostly veterans. They're fine. It's a smaller horror. There are some good, but too much of it is less than good.
I really like the first apparition. It's simple and old fashion. It really fits the 80's time period. It feels like an old horror. I'm less enamor with the CGI ghosts. They're not that bad, but I still want less of them. I like real people dressed in ghost costumes. I want more real effects so that it feels more like the 80's horror. The actors are lesser known, but the leads are mostly veterans. They're fine. It's a smaller horror. There are some good, but too much of it is less than good.
In the cold, wintry fields of New England, a lonely old house wakes up every thirty years - and demands a sacrifice.
Let's face it: Barbara Crampton delivers one of her stronger performances, whereas the male lead delivers his lines in a very stunted way. He shall not even be named here. But good on Crampton! Far too many "horror icons" feel the need to phone in their performances, thinking their name on the poster is all that matters. And while it is true that Crampton's name does sell, she adds a great deal of value to her name here, in what may be her best work since the Stuart Gordon years.
We also have a fun role for Larry Fessenden, who really deserves to have a little fun. Has any other creative genius launched more great independent filmmakers in the last decade? I would guess not.
Let's face it: Barbara Crampton delivers one of her stronger performances, whereas the male lead delivers his lines in a very stunted way. He shall not even be named here. But good on Crampton! Far too many "horror icons" feel the need to phone in their performances, thinking their name on the poster is all that matters. And while it is true that Crampton's name does sell, she adds a great deal of value to her name here, in what may be her best work since the Stuart Gordon years.
We also have a fun role for Larry Fessenden, who really deserves to have a little fun. Has any other creative genius launched more great independent filmmakers in the last decade? I would guess not.
To be honest, this movie baffled me. Is it absolutely terrible? No. Did it have potential? Yes. But somehow all of it amounted to only this bizarre mess of a film. Let me put something out there first: "We Are Still Here" clocks in at one hour and 17 minutes. At the end I expected there to be 20 more minutes of movie left. The whole thing felt rushed, and the ending was...abrupt, to say the least.
The story follows a couple who move into a new house hoping to move past the death of their son. This is a time-tested plot. However, "We Are Still Here" proceeds to give us almost no information about the son and no time to feel the weight of his parent's grief. It merely establishes that his mother can "feel his presence" in the house before embarking on a series of cheap scares. There are several very sudden character deaths that in a better movie would seem bold. Here they just seem lazy. There is precisely one very creepy moment that would have been perfect if it hadn't immediately transitioned to a series of jump scares (that it was also intercut with Lisa Marie's "acting" didn't help).
The later scenes involve almost cartoonish amounts of gore. If the movie was an intentional horror-comedy this would have been fine. The first 3/4 of the movie seemed to be going for straight horror, though, so I didn't know what to make of it. I could talk about the bad writing and jarringly terrible lighting as well, but what would be the point? It ultimately felt like a short film stretched beyond its limit. The concept would have worked great in a tight 15-20 minutes, where movies can get away with the spareness and ambiguity that "We Are Still Here" features. As it is, though, it feels like a movie that ran out of budget and ideas long before it was truly finished.
The story follows a couple who move into a new house hoping to move past the death of their son. This is a time-tested plot. However, "We Are Still Here" proceeds to give us almost no information about the son and no time to feel the weight of his parent's grief. It merely establishes that his mother can "feel his presence" in the house before embarking on a series of cheap scares. There are several very sudden character deaths that in a better movie would seem bold. Here they just seem lazy. There is precisely one very creepy moment that would have been perfect if it hadn't immediately transitioned to a series of jump scares (that it was also intercut with Lisa Marie's "acting" didn't help).
The later scenes involve almost cartoonish amounts of gore. If the movie was an intentional horror-comedy this would have been fine. The first 3/4 of the movie seemed to be going for straight horror, though, so I didn't know what to make of it. I could talk about the bad writing and jarringly terrible lighting as well, but what would be the point? It ultimately felt like a short film stretched beyond its limit. The concept would have worked great in a tight 15-20 minutes, where movies can get away with the spareness and ambiguity that "We Are Still Here" features. As it is, though, it feels like a movie that ran out of budget and ideas long before it was truly finished.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDuring his speech about the Dagmar family, Dave (Monte Markham) notes that the home's first owner sold corpses to the "University over in Essex County" - a reference to author H.P. Lovecraft's fictional Miskatonic University, which was located there.
- GaffesThe newspaper article at the start of the credits is dated September 27, 1859 and cites "a young veteran who fought nobly against Confederates." The Civil War did not start until April 12, 1861.
- Citations
Jacob Lewis: [possessed by the spirit of Lassander Dagmar] You're gonna listen to that old bastard? We were good people! This town murdered my family - sacrificed them to the gods they dug up when they built this place! Oh, nobody knew what was under this house until it was too late!
- ConnexionsReferenced in Horrible Reviews: We Are Still Here (2015) - Video Review (2016)
- Bandes originalesTeenage Sun
Written by Wally Boudway
Performed by Wooden Indian
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is We Are Still Here?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure 24 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant