We Are Still Here (I) (2015) User Reviews

Nice horror movie

[851222 · 7/10 · 20 June 2015]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"We Are Still Here" (2015) is a pretty effective horror film. It has some great atmosphere, good chills, scary sounds and images and very solid acting. The problems with this movie begins at the end - they somehow didn't live up to the great hype they achieved in the first part of this movie, and ending is just blood bath. Nevertheless, almost everything works were so good that i can safely recommend this movie to all horror lovers.

Overall, "We Are Still Here" isn't original, but it's effective genre picture. It has great chilling "hounted house" setting, intriguing cinematography, good acting, nice pacing (although movie is kinda short), and some genuinely good scares. All in all i can recommend to see this horror flick. The ending is a bit off, nevertheless the whole ride is pretty good.

old school horror rewarded with gory shots

[trashgang · 7/10 · 14 July 2015]

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

Good movie, entertaining enough, but could have built the lore up.

[scottmannen1 · 6/10 · 15 June 2015]

The plot is solid enough. The movie is entertaining enough also meaning that if you want something new to watch in the horror genre- this movie is just entertaining enough, The lore could have been improved upon, and with some more back story, perhaps even some flashbacks with some creative storytelling and this film could have been a gem.

The movie at just 84 minutes doesn't provide enough time to the viewer to understand what this evil is that has descended on this family. We are told a few bits a pieces about he first owner who ran a funeral parlour out of this home. Something about the owner Dagmar hiding or selling the bodies and that the house was built on some ancient evil. Other than all that we are left to guess at what the heck the rest of the back story is and what it has to do with the old boiler downstairs.

If only they took another 15 minutes of screen time to flesh out the sordid past and we could have left this movie more satisfied with a true understanding of the houses evil past, where and why and how.

What we are left with is a gore fest with jump scares that are really nothing new. It's just a good old fashioned horror with a 2 star rating.

Nicely done ghost mystery with a Lovecraftian undertone.

[sam21462 · 7/10 · 8 July 2015]

I freely admit to being a sucker for a good ghost story but feel no issue with prejudices when I say the movie delivers.

While there were a few problematic aspects, such as the night when the proclamation was made that there was a darkness all around inside the house which cut to a scene of everyone being sound asleep. I suppose it was the consistent use of scotch that helped with this!

That aside there is plenty of atmospheric creepiness with an easy mystery of ghosts that overlie some sort of ill defined ancient evil that had been uncovered. Nice layered evil that had no problem showing us the first layer of quite well done (yes there is a pun there) ghosts. It was, however, the deeper layer of undefined evil that I found, in the end, to be the most fun.

It was this later part that I view as quite Lovecraftian. The unseen unnamed "darkness" that is the real driving force of a quite haunted house. It is hinted at but never shown and in the end remains apart from the rest of the story that is told. Hats off for this added layer. The easily solved mystery with the impossible mystery added in was delightfully refreshing.

I would also add that a careful eye will catch a reference to the "Miskatonic River" in one of the newspapers shown during the initial end credits.

Sweet!

Old-School Throwback With a Classy Yet Savage Edge

[DareDevilKid · 21 December 2015]

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.

Definitely worth your time....

[subliminalkidx · 7/10 · 10 March 2016]

We Are Still Here is a really solid horror flick, let down only by a bit of a jumbled script that doesn't completely do justice to it's pretty cool central concept (a gory haunted house story with monster-in-the-basement jump scares and Lovecraftian overtones.) While it isn't the instant classic some people here are claiming, neither is it the disaster others say... "boring" - is an accusation I've seen thrown at it a few times by reviewers, I'm assuming, raised on a diet Saw sequels who think that Eli Roth is a horror auteur. It's definitely a movie that punches above it's weight: the story moves at a good clip, building from some modest jump scares to a climax filled with proper 80s style, non-CGI gore effects (exploding heads, eye gouging, and geysers of blood flying everywhere). I think it's pretty cool that they went with a more mature cast instead of the usual bunch of anonymous teens: it was really fantastic to see Re-Animator scream queen Barbarah Crampton get her teeth into a role that required her to do more than simply look scared - her character has quite a bit of emotional depth, and she pulled off the mix the steely determination and heartbroken melancholy that her character demanded with grace and style. As for the whole conversation about Lisa Marie's plastic surgery - I actually thought it worked for her character, who seemed to be the kind of spaced out West Coast wannabe moon-goddess type who might have had a past in acting or modeling... maybe it was typecasting, but whatever. The people freaked out by it obviously are not used to seeing leading roles going to people who are over 21, because to me everybody seemed pretty well cast. The most forgettable characters were actually the young couple who show up midway through only to be dispatched within 10 minutes. The film's main problem is the script. It sets up a great concept, but then doesn't seem to know what to do with it. There's an attempt to create a mythology, but when you think about it too hard it starts to trip up over itself. It's all well and good to have this complex back-story, but the story has to play by it's own rules, and this one doesn't: for example, why did the undead family haunting the house not turn on the denizens of the town before? They obviously hated them, yet they dutifully did their bidding every 30 years, right up until this time around? Doesn't make sense. Plus the whole needing a blood sacrifice to keep the evil inside the house ting didn't make hold together, because surely as soon as the first people had been killed (i.e. The young couple) then the sacrifice was done, so there was no need to kill anyone else, unless Im missing something. Plus its pretty bad form to keep hinting about this awful evil that will erupt out of the bowels of the earth if the sacrifice doesn't go as planned, and then not follow through by either letting the evil loose or convincingly vanquishing it. At the end they seem to be building up to SOMETHING coming up from the basement, and then.... nothing. It felt like they wrote themselves into a corner,then decided to cut the story short with that too-abrupt ambivalent ending. But that said, if you check you expectations and take it for what it is, WE ARE STILL HERE is still a well made, engaging horror flick with a great atmosphere, interesting concept, and enough shocks and gore to keep jaded, old school horror fans happy. Check it out...

We Are Still Here...but why are you?

[Yuhao88 · 4/10 · 11 October 2015]

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.

I cannot be THIS out of touch

[suwakjeff · 3/10 · 11 March 2016]

The first fifteen or twenty minutes of this movie were gold. It was horror done right. Atmospheric, paying upon the unknown, subtle scares. The dialogue was pretty bad, but I was more than engaged by the building horror.

then, suddenly, the movie completely loses its restraint and becomes a goofy gore fest with monsters that just might be action heroes.

I don't want to say anything else because I don't want to add spoilers. I'll just say that I love horror movies. It is my favorite genre. There are different levels of horror. There is true, psychological mind screws that get under the skin and stay there for days (my favorite kind). On the opposite end of the spectrum are these CGI, "thrill" driven, blood-and-gore-a-minute for people with no attention spans (my lease favorite kind). The latter has its place. No doubt. My only problem with this film is that it pretends, and many of the reviewers on here seem to be pretending, that it's the former.

I honestly feel like the victim of false advertising and I have a hard time believing the almost universal praise this movie received. I know my tastes lean a bit more towards the artsy and stylish (and old), but I cannot be THIS out of touch. For god's sake, I just watched Age of Ultron last night and enjoyed a lot of things about it.

It got a little wet in there...

[joeywilderjustiss · 7/10 · 9 June 2015]

I think the "throwback" quality of the film was done well. The opening scene with the Mercedes was reminiscent of the Night of the Living Dead. The story moved at a nice pace without unfolding too quickly. The crazy hippie friends reminded me of the Amityville Horror from the 60s with Helen Shaver. So many things went right with the film and they pulled it off while giving up some hardcore gore. I think some of the acting (and dodging) the sticky bits wasn't so much an act. I don't think there was a wall left unscathed. Solid film. Entertaining and curious. Wouldn't make me keep the night light on, but I feel they were going for another sense with this piece. Dark Sky is making some clever choices and I see the work paying off from film to film. It is always great to see a group do well when they apparently care about the horror genre.

Mysteriously good metascore

[begob · 3/10 · 25 June 2015]

Middle aged couple grieving the recent loss of their son move into a remote house, and find themselves caught between the evil in the basement and the nutters from the local town.

Swimming against the tide, I know, but I found this really poor. It opens with nice shots of the snowy landscape, then a couple driving to a destination - standard horror opening, but the dialogue has nothing. If you want to see how it's done with skill and imagination watch From the Dark (2014). We get to the destination, and it's '70s anti-colour co-ordination as the couple meets another middle aged couple, and the dialogue still has nothing.

It's about couples really - I think there are 5, if you include the basement dwellers. But the script does nothing with it. Satire of '70s swingers? No. Surely then it has a coherent, satisfying story? No. Ah, but it references '70s horror and has some cheesy gore. OK, but pfff.

Lots of sound-based attempts at jump scares. Feeble CGI. The ghosts look like they wandered off the set of The Fog.

Overall, bunch of middle aged actors get caught in juvenile misdemeanor. Community service all round.

ps. from the Ebert review: "Full disclosure: Mr. G. has a day job as a New-York-based movie publicist, and I've had friendly and rewarding exchanges with him in that context."

Great horror film, made with a passion and respect for the genre

[rocknrelics · 9/10 · 17 June 2015]

I was lucky enough to see this at a friends house last night, went into it blind, and oh boy what a nice surprise.Whilst yes, it's another haunted house movie, this brings something new to the table with a great climax to the film that really ramps it up.The performances from the whole cast are excellent,and the main four characters are likable and believable.The cinematography is excellent, and the whole film just has this authentic feel to it.I won't reveal anything of the storyline,as I think it's one of those films that's best enjoyed if you don't know too much about it,but as a seasoned horror fan,I found this one of the most refreshing films I've seen in years with some good tension and scares.I've seen some comments about 'B movie this, B movie that', but I didn't get that feeling at all, this had the feel of a 70's-80's classic horror.A little more character development of the villains would have made this even better, it could have stood another 10 minutes or more being added to the running time which would have allowed this.I'll be pre-ordering the Blu Ray as soon as possible,when there are so many horror films out there that shouldn't have even been released, this deserves my money and to be in my collection.

Great scares, that's about it.

[adamoctranspo · 6/10 · 18 October 2018]

I really wanted to get into this film for Halloween. I thought it would be a new classic horror film I missed but I was mostly wrong. There are some great effects, scares and atmosphere in We Are Still Here. Also these ghosts don't mess around, they kill and do it in brutal ways. I felt like I was watching a ghost slasher film at times.

That's the positive stuff. Here's the negative:

1. I disliked the cast, especially the main couple. 2. Some of the acting just isn't good. 3. The ending is all over the place. 4. The house wasn't scary or very unique.

I recommend this as a rental. I wouldn't watch it again though.

Boring horror flick

[KineticSeoul · 3/10 · 31 July 2015]

I thought this was going to be a creepy horror movie with a good tone and vibe going for it. I did like the atmosphere, especially the beginning few minutes. I thought it would be one of those B movies with a really creepy feel to it with some clever elements thrown in. I was wrong, I was just bored with this one. And it doesn't even have any artistic or original approach to it as well. I could see that it was trying to go in that classic horror movie direction, but it falters. Mainly because even the slow build up isn't even enticing or new. The build up just seemed like pointless drivel to lengthen the runtime. Now I am an audience member that likes some classic movies, but the pacing for this one was just bad. Overall this is a very forgettable horror flick that isn't even worth the time. I give this movie a 3, because I did like the semi-retro cinematography and look going for it. It did have potential to be really good. Maybe if they delve more in the mystery elements revolving the towns people.

3/10

Embalmed yet They Breathe

[chaos-rampant · 31 October 2015]

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.

Strong Directorial Debut

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 18 October 2017]

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.

Familiar but effective scare flick

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 31 December 2015]

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.

A Reach

[thelastblogontheleft · 3/10 · 27 November 2016]

I watched this movie last night, with my husband and pup snoring next to me, and had high hopes of being creeped out beyond belief while being the only person awake in the house. And at first, this movie succeeded. It has a creeping, atmospheric beginning — really highlighting the desolation of New England in the winter — and some truly good jump scares along with just a general sense of tension, though you aren't sure why. More than once I said "NO THANKS" out loud as some shadowy figure lurked behind Anne (Barbara Crampton). Her loss seemed palpable initially and I thought it set the movie up for some deep emotion amidst some truly creepy things happening, particularly with her obvious desperation for their son, Bobby, to still be with them.

The movie was set in the 70's which, in my opinion, they made a little too obvious at times. It wasn't really necessary for any part of the plot, but it was a small but welcome difference. I also appreciated that the main characters were older, grieving parents moving into a new home to get away from the pain surrounding their son's accident and subsequent death rather than a picture-perfect couple in their 30's with two kids and a dog. But that's about where it ended for me.

Pretty soon the stiff and sometimes over-the-top cheesy acting of the main characters really chipped away at the darkness it held at the beginning. I know that may have been intentional on the director's part to play some kind of homage to some classic 70's horror, but damn. Before long you're informed that the house has a gruesome history and, surprise, the couple is not deterred and somehow only mildly weirded out by their neighbor, in no unclear terms, telling them to GET OUT. They invite their friends, May and Jacob — who are known for being spiritual — to feel the house out, but it's almost as if Anne only wants to hear that Bobby, their deceased son, is the presence she feels, and anything else she dismisses as though May is blabbering nonsense.

They did a fairly good job at showing just enough of the spirits at first to freak you out without going over the top, but that ends as well, and at some point they're just straight up walking through the house (though I did appreciate their charred, ashy appearance), which kind of takes away any sense of mystery. Jacob, played by Larry Fessenden, even manages to botch a possession scene — which for me almost ALWAYS sends chills up my spine — with his lack of any subtlety. This movie that started off very minimally spooky descends quickly into what I thought was a very stereotypical and boring plot with not much explanation for much of it until the ending credits rolled and some unnecessary gore (the only death scene I appreciated was Anne killing the bartender with a fistful of knives).

I'll give a plus to the very last line in the movie (the one thing I won't spoil for you), since I thought it was a fairly awesome way to end it. But, ultimately, this movie just felt like a huge reach to me.

A pleasant surprise

[gedikreverdi · 6/10 · 6 December 2020]

An old mortuary house located in the countryside covered with snow. A mid aged coupled relocates to the house after losing their son in a car accident. The neighboring old couple comes and tells about the first owner of the house The Magars who would run the mortuary but when they found out they were selling the bodies to the university they were punished and covered with tar and after that the father took her own life. The house was haunted by the father his wife and daughter. The psychic Couple who are friends with them visit them for the weekend to conduct a seance because the woman felt sth about the house. Their son and his girlfriend's killings were great. When they arrived the two couple were eating out downtown. Seeing the door at the note they entered the house and the son got killed in the basement and his girlfriend got killed with a crochet from the back thru her chest while driving away from home. When the women went downtown for groceries the guys conducted a seance and the psychisch visitor guy got possesed and he killed himself by poking himself in the eye. The villagers knew it was haunted and wants fresh blood so when they saw thy weren't killed they came to the house to do it by themselves and shot the visitor woman when she opened the door. The two found refuge up in the bedroom. Some villagers got killed in violent and bloody ways by the ghosts and it felt a little bit B movie at this point. They were completely consumed by the fire of the ghosts and become smoke. And the rest escaped but the owner of the restaurant downtown and the neighbor old man stayed. When she was approaching from the back Anne killed with with multiple knives in the throat. And then they went downstairs and the old guy was there and he was killed by the ghost as well after he said they should be killed because they brought their sons spirit to here so they can live here with him forever. The ghost said they will be burning till the stars go dark. Then their son bobby Called their named from the basement and both looked pleased looking down in the basement and they probably stayed there. Bloody gory scenes were pleasing and the sight of the ghosts were good. The scenes of the snow capped fields and the long road in the middle of nowhere felt really eerie.

This is not old school horror.

[Dodge-Zombie · 1/10 · 17 June 2022]

To those people saying this is old school horror well I can't agree. Old school horror never took ages for anything to happen. In a movie that's only an hour and 20 minutes long extended shots of scenery and, in a couple of instances, a boiler are just trying to push a running time that clearly didn't have enough story to fill.

Look a picture frame is broken so obviously it's the supernatural. Give me a break.

A movie out of time and space...

[genderarm · 7/10 · 19 September 2020]

We Are Still Here is paradoxically earnest and witty. There are a lot of reasons why you might enjoy the movie.

It's a blend of intertextual reference and homage, love letter to the genre, and desire to live in the past. If it weren't quite so earnest, it would almost be a parody. It's Lovecraftian in that sense-being a work not of its time.

The points where it departs from the reasons above are the points where it loses itself. The deep emersion in decades past are subverted a few times, and that does detract from the enjoyment.

The pacing of the movie is...awkward in good ways. It's like watching a newborn giraffe stand up for the first time, and then suddenly blow up.

Most of the movies effects are physical, but this makes the ones that aren't stand out enough to pull me out of the experience and land me in bad CGI land.

Despite it's flaws, if your a fan of the horror genre and have any frame of reference for horror movies of decades past, its likely to be an enjoyable experience.

Bleh

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 4/10 · 8 March 2020]

Some cheesy effects but really some decent gore. A bit plot lite. The end to me didn't make a lot of sense really. In fact changing the score to a 4. Very mediocre film.

Good horror is still here

[stencilman · 8/10 · 20 June 2015]

I am admittedly not a big fan of Lucio Fulci AKA The Godfather of Gore. He made some good films(Zombi 2 and City of the living Dead) but I am not a fan of his House by the Cemetery. I still liked his way of developing atmosphere although he torpedoed it himself by putting gratuitous gore and illogical sequences though it was part of his charm. So, when I heard of We Are Still Here and how it's a tribute to Fulci's films, I was intrigued if not too hopeful. Fortunately, it turned out to be a wonderful surprise.

The best part about this movie apart from the creepy atmosphere and the beautiful ice-covered New England scenery is the very good performances by nearly everyone in the cast, especially Barbara Crampton, Andrew Sensenig and the extremely creepy Monte Markham. Larry Fessenden is on hand to provide a bit of ham which he does with glee. The film much like Fulci's post-Zombi 2 films, ultimately explodes in a gore-drenched frenzy though this one still keeps sight of it's central characters. It is also surprisingly well-paced and doesn't sag in the middle like others of it's genre.

It's true that the story isn't original but the acting, direction and effects are so strong that they make up for it. I will even be audacious enough to say that this might be a better horror film than It Follows which despite stronger scares, stagnated in the middle. The director, Geoghegan seems very promising and I will eagerly await his next feature.

Altamente Raccomandato!

Good, with a little more effort it would be great

[matthewnoorman · 7/10 · 15 October 2020]

Honestly the biggest problem here is the run time. Make this movie a half hour or so longer and build up the lore, the background and increase the suspense/tension of the film and we would have an 8 outta 10 maybe even an 9. The theme is a pretty cliche modern horror theme. A haunted house right? But they did it a little differently and a little better than most as well as a little bit of throwback to the 70's era of horror. BUT it is still under developed because this story has potential and its not hard to see how this could of been outstanding rather than above average. They needed to build up the backstory of the house and make the movie longer to spread out the pacing and provide some more insight on the evil of the house so the film could have had more suspense. Overall a good watch I recommend it and I am proud to have it in my collection of horror films because it is still really solid. It just could of been better.

Really bad. Don't know where the good press came from.

[PhillyBen · 3/10 · 27 June 2022]

This is like a mediocre-to-bad episode of the TV show "Supernatural," minus the Winchesters, drawn out to movie length and with movie-length expectations. Bad direction, bad acting, lame effects, stupid backstory. I just don't know what else to tell you. Don't watch it.

I watched because some Paste Magazine article listed it as 79th best horror movie of all time, and said that it might have been the single most terrifying movie of 2015. What utter nonsense. "We are Still Here" is really, really bad. I don't need to give spoilers. But the entire premise is absurd, dumber than most campfire ghost stories. It's poorly written, poorly explained, almost no internal logic. And the effects are laughably bad. Jaw-droppingly bad. Throughout the movie one has no idea what can explain the fiery "theme" of the special effects. They're not explained by the script. After the movie has ended, the closing credits roll against the backdrop of old newspaper headlines and articles that could give maybe a 20% explanation of what had happened during the film... but they come after it's over! And they only explain 20%! And we don't care at any rate!

Hopefully that explains why the writing is bad (bad acting as well). As for the direction, early on there are these tiny, manufactured jump-scares where the sound or a little movement tell you that you're supposed to be frightened, but the story and action haven't warranted that reaction. As the movie progresses, the director starts relying on the jaw-droppingly bad effects, and that doesn't improve matters at all.

I'm guessing that they cut some pretty relevant backstory material for the sake of brevity, without realizing that now the story logic wouldn't make sense. One review mentioned Lovecraftian themes: um, no, except maybe the mention of Essex. If there was supposed to be something Lovecraftian, maybe that's part of what got cut. But you can't just slop some stuff together and expect to be praised.

Look elsewhere.

Pretty Good Little Spook Movie

[venusboys3 · 7/10 · 23 September 2015]

I didn't know much about this going in... I just liked the poster and the name. I don't watch previews these days, they give to much away. Anyway, I had not expectations so I couldn't be disappointed... but it was surprisingly good. Sure, it's obviously made on a small budget... but in my opinion most of the better horror films are. This is your basic spookhouse movie layered on top of... something else. A clever combination of subgenres I think.

I particularly liked that most of the characters were NOT horny teenagers. The motivations of the characters required older actors and that's a nice change of pace. Also, they weren't particularly glamorous... the people, the cars, the house... all look pretty ordinary. This might have been due to the small budget but if so thank goodness for low-budget horror.

The script and the acting were decent... nothing to distractingly bad. Though I don't get why the creepy town leader guy would tell the family the backstory of the house if he wanted them to stay so badly (who would want to live in an old mortuary?).

The only real weakness of the movie is what, for me, were comical amounts of gore. There is no subtlety to the kills... and people just explode like their cardboard boxes full of fruit punch. It seems like a big chunk of the budget must have been spent on the gore FX when really going with less overt FX would have been less ridiculous and probably cost less.

Still, I quite enjoyed it and it gave me some fun ideas for our next game of Call of Cthulhu.