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.

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.

For those who grew up with horror made in the seventies this will be a throwback to that era. Those who are into the new horror genre will find it rather boring. Let me explain it a little bit.

There isn't that much action going on and before it becomes awry you have almost wait for an hour. Before that you will have your jump scenes and the atmosphere that will take you into the horror.

I see that some reviews are talking about unknown thespians but what the hell, Barbara Crampton of the Re-animator franchise fame and Monte Markham, well known in the eighties and seventies.

If you can sit through the first hour you will be surprised to see a lot of bloody and even gory shots. Really something to check out if you are a geek of Italian gory flicks (Fulci style) but if you like the flicks made nowadays avoid it at all costs.

Gore 2/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

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.