We Are Still Here

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

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.

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.

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.