We Are What We Are

A film with such a visible title is surely hinting at the potential themes of the film, right? Well, popularly so, that seems to not be enough for the majority as they're seeking unusually complex films that are basically only made to reach that one significant message to the audience. In my honest opinion, not every film has to blatantly and pretentiously boast its themes and message in order to be considered a masterpiece or, at least, a great film. Upon entering a film, I expect it to entertain and immerse me in a memorable story, coupled with all the effective elements to make it so. If you're commencing this film with that mindset, you're almost guaranteed to have a much better experience. This motion picture tells a remarkable and compelling story about an isolated family who vastly differentiate from the normal citizens- a father and his two daughters and son- suddenly mourning the death of their mother/wife.

The film does noticeably carry along at a slow pace in its first half as the moviegoer adjusts to the environment and carefully observes this rural atmosphere and its wildly strange inhabitants. Once you familiarize yourself with the family's habits as their backstory unravels, the film begins to kick in. In defense to the flak the film's been receiving from critics who're essentially panning its sluggish pace, I'm forced to question why Terrence Malick's films (the earlier works, especially) are met with such unanimous applause because they perfectly replicate what it means to be excruciatingly slow-paced. With this unfolding plot, the pace eventually picks up in its latter half (unlike Malick's persistence in meddling pace), and we're ultimately greeted, for lack of a better term, with a remarkably tense ending, which serves as a pinnacle in conclusions. Although the film is frankly plagued by an element of predictability due to the way some scenes are shot, an edge of unpredictability is highly prevalent throughout the finale. The crowd encounters several twists and turns along the way until all has been exposed and the conflict hits its marvelous peak. Basically, this is one of those movies that are definitely redeemed by the exceptional manner in which the story wraps up.

By the way, this is, at the end of the day, a horror film in essence, and I greatly appreciated the film's preference of storytelling rather than the mindless path of excessive gore and pointless violence, that which infests the horrendous contemporary horror flicks. Admittedly, I found myself losing interest in the film's events and ensuing mystery until it finally reaches that sweet spot halfway through the story (as previously mentioned). In addition, it's superbly acted with the whole cast terrifically fitting into their roles and the father perfectly conveying that look of menace, intimidating everyone around him with a low-pitched, frightening voice and a werewolf-like, unshaven face. However, I'll have to mention just how irritated I was by the amount of mumbling that was occurring during the beginning. It was extremely difficult to grasp a single word out of their mouths, and I can't possibly stress just how much I hate actors' decisions to mumble. Understandably, they're often found in miserable positions. Regardless, without subtitles, you're left to struggle with understanding as the tale progresses.

Furthermore, the cinematography is undeniably beautiful at times and then, it also serves well when it comes to telling the story with that hint of tension and suspense (the primary goal of a cinematographer, in the first place, before going for fancier shots), complementary to the mise-en-scène as well. The director's consistent use of rack focusing undoubtedly contributes to the outstanding execution of some specific scenes, especially the grand finale. In the end, the film isn't fascinatingly complex or considerably intelligent, but it absolutely works in terms of plot, camera-work, and performances. Though the music disappointedly isn't striking and feels fairly bland and generic (removing potentially greater suspense and eeriness from the final product), We Are What We Are will likely stick in your mind due to the completely unexpected and pulsating intensity that erupts as it nears the finish mark.

The Parkers, a reclusive family who follow ancient customs, find their secret existence threatened as a torrential downpour moves into their area, forcing daughters Iris and Rose to assume responsibilities beyond those of a typical family.

Director Jim Mickle is known for his films "Stake Land" (2010) and "Mulberry St" (2006), and has really made a name for himself as a rising star in the world of horror. This is probably his best picture yet, and hopefully gets him the praise he deserves and his name to be more widely known.

Mickle did not originally want to direct a remake of the original film, as he dislikes American remakes of foreign horror films. After speaking with Jorge Michel Grau, Mickle and Demici realized they could put their own spin on it. Michael Haneke, Japanese horror, and cult film "Martha Marcy May Marlene" served as inspirations.

I think this film speaks for itself. The pacing, tone, atmosphere... it is very accomplished. Now, granted, I am not familiar with the Mexican version, so I can hardly compare them. But this impressed me.

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.

Good narrative until the five final minutes... poor ending... it was disappointing.

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.