We Are What We Are

Not terrible, not amazing... but I was entertained. The pacing was a bit off and I feel like if they had really thrown it into "thriller" it would have been a bit more engaging. The two lead girls did a great job. Would recommend.

In my recent horror movie craving, I came across WE ARE WHAT WE ARE after seeing a few brief mentions of it when it premiered at Cannes in 2013. I'd forgotten all about it until I saw it sitting on the shelf at my local department store and couldn't remember what it was that had interested me in it in the first place, but I figured I'd give it a go. I refreshed myself on the premise and settled in for the movie, soon finding myself pleasantly surprised. It was nothing like I expected, and this turned out both good and bad. But first, a little information about the premise: the film is a remake of a 2010 Mexican horror film that I was unfamiliar with, and it follows a family known as the Parkers. Living in a small town somewhere in America, the Parkers generally keep to themselves. Their neighbors seem to know very little about them but view them as a pleasant little family. As a massive storm batters the town, the family matriarch dies and the father, Frank (Bill Sage), is left to care for three children: Iris (Ambyr Childs), Rose (Julia Garner), and young Rory. Their mother's death couldn't have happened at a worse time, as the family is approaching time for one of their more unusual traditions: Lamb's Day. As the family's disturbing secrets are revealed, the town's doctor (Michael Parks) finds a clue that might lead to information on his daughter's disappearance and his investigation leads him a little to close to the Parker's family tradition.

WE ARE WHAT WE ARE is a tough call. There are a lot of elements I liked but there was a bit that put me off. For starters, the pacing is nothing like what I expected. I don't know exactly what I thought the movie was going to be, but I sure didn't believe it to be a slow-burning, high-tension horror piece. In what I expect is a major complaint from others, the movie is very slowly paced. There are a lot of long shots seemingly used to highlight the film's dark atmosphere. It's a very high contrast film with very little actual color. There should be no complaints about the film's cinematography from Ryan Samul; if anything in the movie is pulled off near perfectly, it's the moody lighting and muted colors that give the movie a very defined style. So I can understand why so much effort was made to utilize it, but even the dialogue is delivered in such a way to make the movie feel longer than it is. There are a lot of quiet moments and, when anyone speaks, it's generally in hush tones. Everyone here is muttering as if every word spilling from their mouths is a dark secret (though I guess some of it is). It all results in a very dreary movie and it's hard to get excited about something so depressing. Actually, that's probably the perfect way to describe the feel of WE ARE WHAT WE ARE: depressing.

But that doesn't mean it's not a good movie, even if it does leave you feeling sort of drained by the end. The performances in the movie are actually really, really good. The film's four main stars…Sage, Childers, Garner, and Parks…are great. Frank Parker (Sage) is a man set in his ways. Lamb's Day is a tradition that's been carried out in his family for generations and he will continue to abide. He never once questions his actions or what he is putting his family through. As far as he's concerned, this is God's will. The sisters, Iris and Rose, realize that what their doing is monstrous. Their minds are a little more modern and they recognize exactly what they're doing and how wrong it is. But Iris, the eldest daughter, has the responsibility to see it through and she agrees to continue to appease her father while quietly hoping she'll be gone before the next time she's called upon to perform her duties. Rose, on the other hand, wants out and she wants out now. She wants nothing to do with it and, more importantly, she wants to save her little brother from falling into their father's insane beliefs. Michael Parks as Doc Barrow is a nice addition as well. I've never really seen him in such an expanded role and a film as gloomy as this seems perfect for his tense, deliberate line delivery.

The performances and the cinematography are so well done that it helps forgive the film's snail pacing. Then there's a bizarre climactic final sequence to close the movie that goes completely against all the mood and atmosphere building of the previous hour and a half to blast the audience with some shock value that doesn't quite sit right within the film. I can sort of see what the filmmakers were going for but that doesn't stop it from coming across a little too amusingly, especially in execution. I won't spoil it here but I would recommend giving WE ARE WHAT WE ARE a viewing to find out for yourself. It's an engaging horror/drama with a strong cast and a great sense of style that overcomes it's few flaws, and it'd work well as entertainment for a quiet night rental.

Dark, slow but steady film about the apparently normal Parker family, who share a macabre secret ritual. Excellent acting and cinematography bring an immediate realism that really carries this film. WARNING: If gore and grossness get to you, stay away. While WE ARE WHAT WE ARE is not just a constant schlock-fest, there is some pretty disturbing stuff here: Short but graphic scenes of an autopsy, etc.

There's been some debate about whether or not WAWWA is really a horror film, and I would vote a definite "yea" even though the whole mood and atmosphere are different (and better in many ways) than most contemporary horror flicks. There are some elements of suspense, but you know the big "secret" before it's halfway through--the cover also gives a decent hint--so it doesn't exactly work as a mystery. Regardless, the brief flashbacks to the family's ancestors in the 1780s add a great deal.

Though none of the individual elements here are anything that hasn't been done plenty of times before, WAWWA's whole combination of qualities make it a different experience. It's obviously low budget but still far from being another super-amateurish cheapie. The makers of this film did an excellent job with what they had to work with. There are some blank spots--e.g., the body in the water--and a little stronger sense of place would have been nice. At the same time, it's probably better that they don't explain every little thing away.

The Parker family is fasting following and old family tradition. When the matriarch, Emma Parker (Kassie DePaiva), goes to a hardware store in the nearby small town during a rainstorm, she does not feel well, has an accident and dies. Her husband Frank Parker (Bill Sage), who is the owner of a trailer camping area, grieves her death and forces her older daughter Iris (Ambyr Childers) to assume the responsibility for keeping the family tradition, feeding them and nursing her teenage daughter Rose (Julia Garner) and her young brother Rory (Jack Gore). He also gives Emma's journal to Rose with the history of their family to learn their traditions.

Meanwhile Sheriff Meeks (Nick Damici) and Deputy Anders (Wyatt Russell) are investigating cases of missing persons in the skirts of the town. Doc Barrow (Michael Parks), who lost one daughter that has disappeared, is carrying out Emma's autopsy and finds an important discovery that will connect the missing cases with the Parker family. What is the tradition of the Parker family?

"We Are What We Are" is a depressing and creepy remake of a 2010 Spanish movie "Somos lo que hay". The story is developed in slow pace in a depressive atmosphere and the acting is top-notch. Unfortunately the screenplay discloses the mystery too soon but the gore conclusion is gruesome and hard to be seen. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Somos o Que Somos" ("We Are What We Are")

Having seen and quite enjoyed the Spanish original I was a bit concerned about seeing it remade. My concerns were unfounded though as it turns out since, while the director did use the general idea of the original, he did not so much do a remake as a spin off. The setting, characters, general plot, and ending all very significantly deviate from the original, and there is even a detailed back story added which creates, if not sympathy, at least comprehension for the acts this family does.

The movie itself is beautifully developed to create both a very plausible realism and very well defined characters. It is these characters that are the goal, and the movie does not resort to needless gore to satisfy cruder appetites. The acting is carried off quite flawlessly, and we do find ourselves at least rooting for the children to some degree. All in all it was well worth the watch.

Would I say it is better than the original? Well, given that they are both very different it would be unfair to pit them against each other directly. I will say I did prefer the original overall as it was first, so it took some of the novelty out of the second, and the original made it more of a sort of very twisted coming of age tale than the second movie did, and I really liked that dimension of it. But if I look at them more as apples and oranges, I would say they both are very well done and each earns its place as a highly recommended piece of work.