We Are Still Here

A fun Poltergeist-style horror that does a decent job of achieving that 70s feel without trying to smother you with the aesthetic like one may smother her husband with a pillow to collect insurance money (note: this does not happen in movie). Don't know if this film is trolling me when in 1 scene the husband is on the phone with the boiler repairman yelling, "I know what smoke smells like!" and then 5 minutes later has the character enter a room that reeks of smoke and ask, "what's that smell?"

A pretty surprisingly good low budget horror movie that doesn't really show its limitations in the effects. It could have been a heck of a lot better with more decapitations and/or bodily dismemberment.

The Babadook with the arthouse cinematography, subtext and power removed and filled with piles and piles of blood, stupidity and dialogue straight out of a high school film project.

Amateur hour with a half-assed 70s vibe that can't mask its lame dialogue, abundant exposition and generic demon baddies.

In addition to horribly written dialogue, it falls into the trap of so many other haunted house movies and blows its load WAY too early. You can't show us the creatures in full detail in the first ten minutes and then expect us to be shocked every time we see them again over the course of the movie.

It's sort of an inverted Rosemary's Baby, isn't it? Nowhere near as good, of course, but still. Nice setting, good slow build, just doesn't quite know what to leave unexplained and what to infodump. Recommended to fans of House of the Devil.

Boring, lame.

It starts out pretty nice and sufficiently spooky. I have a special love for the winter setting and haunted houses are some of my favorite things, too. I felt like eventually it just became too much, so that instead of creepy and scary things, you just get a crazy gorefest and that's more fitting for a movie oriented towards action rather than horror. Still, it was a decent watch with some good ideas, but in the end it didn't really do much for me horror-wise. Sometimes less is more.

Surprisingly good, melodramatic appearance and concerns for oh so emo drama histories and alcoholism were unfounded, with likeable fresh characters and surprisingly horror style without that jump scare bullshit, rich town history and pulls in from ope in scene.

Larry Fessenden is great, chewing up socks & scenery, & the last 20 minutes bring on the gore, but otherwise this is pretty lackluster.

It took me a couple tries to get into this one but by the end I really enjoyed myself.

Wow, this surprised me. I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. The slow buildup, the subversion of tropes and the really smile-inducing and satisfying ending.

Poor pacing [X] Horrible acting [X] Shitty writing [X] Tons of pointless gore [X] Terrible cinematography [X] Scary? [_]

A film that gets under your skin and shocks you with what is to come.

Baaaaad acting

The slow, slow burn isn't worth the (admittedly bloody) payoff.

Several unanswered questions but can't say I didn't mostly enjoy the movie.

While the script really falls short, the gore scenes really deliver it, spilling blood everywhere in always a rushing, unnerving ways.

Top badass moment? I’m sorry, but there’s no way this film is set in Aylesbury. I know the Buckinghamshire town quite well and it doesn’t look anything like it. This is a competent and quite scary horror, but it feels very (no pun intended, honestly) soulless. It goes through the motions, ticks all the boxes, but by the end I was just metaphorically shrugging my shoulders thinking, yeh, whatever, I think I’ll watch a few episodes of “The Walking Dead” now. No cats, chainsaws or decapitations.

Too much of a slow burn. The jokey use of haunted house cliches is fine, plays really well in a theater, but fails to give the film identity. However, it's worthwhile for the third act blood bath. Larry Fessenden is also great in his part and kept reminding me of the Too Many Cooks guy.

watchable

This fairly low budget outing really doesn't have the budget to achieve everything it wants to do, and a few of the actors are really not up to the demands of the fairly modest script, but I still enjoyed this little throwback to a certain kind of early 80's horror outings. The film is very clearly inspired by Fulci's "The House by the Cemetery" with a little splash of "The Fog" thrown in for colour.

I think it deserves credit for being as creepy as it is (which isn't very, but somewhat) despite the extremely standard premise and off-the-shelf spooks.

The script is an absolute bottom-of-the-barrel B-movie trash, but since some talented people from other departments gave their best honest effort, the film at least has the look and feel of something actually worthwhile. Also, for some reason I feel like I need to pour myself a nice glass of J&B Rare™.

Didn't mind the slow chilling build-up, but I struggled to get full into the mood for this. Maybe it was the corny looking guys in it? Still there's something creepy-cool about this semi-old school horror from Ted Geoghegan in his feature directorial debut.

An initial hurdle is the poor quality of the camera work, but if you are a fan of horror movies I would hang in there. The two main actors are the weakest of the cast, but thankfully all of the secondary characters make up for it. In particular Larry Fessenden's performance was extraordinary.The pacing of this film was perfect, and one of its greatest strengths.

An old-school ghost story that ends like a splatter movie. My opinion here : http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be/2016/05/we-are-still-here-2015.html

I feel like I should've liked this more but it was honestly super mediocre to me.