We Are Still Here

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 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.

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!

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.

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