How much money did the so called critics get paid to give this so called movie such a great review? I just waisted 84 minutes of my life! This movie was total garbage!

Mediocre at best. Mostly boring, the whole time it felt like it was lacking something. There are a couple of jump scares but overall it’s not worth the time.

A very well acted and thoughtful provoking movie. Scary moments and a wild ride at the end. A great callback to a simpler time in horror.

Really good haunted house horror movie. Scare fans should like it. Well written, directed, and acted. Check it out.

Were the critic reviews paid for or were they friends and family? It seems all money and focus during production went to the comparatively impressive special effects, because aside from that it was a mess. This film was a laundry list of bad acting, bad directing, bad editing, bad cinematography, bad sound, bad lighting, bad writing, etc. Seriously, how does this have a 95% critic rating?!

Despite what the ratings are claiming, this movie is a waste of time. A silly plot with poor special effects.

Same old New England town story that has a curse. This movie could’ve been made to be 5 minutes long and you’d get the whole story. Yeah, people died in the end with ridiculous amounts of unnecessary blood. How the hell can ANYONE call this a masterpiece???? Nothing scary about it, lame acting, I could go on. A 97% RATING??? The ones who think so must’ve been smokin the hippie’s cheeba.

Some of it's plot is half baked, there are some really weak performances, but the utterly shocking and wonderfully gory finale makes the whole movie worth a viewing.

Two retirees move into a house that demands sacrifice every 30 years. Course they got it cheap. An exceptional horror movie with interesting characters and an intelligent plot. Crampton impressed me with her performance and she's still so beautiful. Loved the visual portrayal of the spooks and found it a very tense film that honors some forebears in horror. Highly recommended.

This movie was a director's nightmare, excellent material and premise… but terrible dialogue, acting, and over-the-top camera work. One can't help but think of what the camera person must be doing behind the lens to get the unnecessary movement and try hard angles. The mother & father's acting is horrendous, must be related to someone important or someone owed them a favor.

Possibly one of the dumbest movies I've ever watched.

When you get a demonic fist through the chest while driving, but you can't crash your vintage Dodge Dart Lite because old vehicles are expensive and the studio doesn't have that kind of money. Initially, We Are Still Here takes shape as a slowly-paced exercise in melancholy as a couple try to distance themselves from the untimely death of their son. But then as the story unfolds and more characters are introduced, every step taken makes the film more bleakly comedic, with neighbors that have unusually intimate knowledge of past atrocities committed in your new home, a couple of hippie spiritualist buddies, and an entire town that ogles you with a sense of fear and awe when you're just trying to eat dinner. It's got a lower budget and tries to use it effectively by using a few sparse jumpscares in the early runtime before going off the rails with gore towards the finale; many have compared the structure to the films of Lucio Fulci. Initially rather somber, the film gets progressively sillier with each interaction and features some really strange character decisions, plus several story beats remain oddly unexplained. For what he had to work with, writer-director Ted Geoghegan delivers an interesting but slightly odd film that probably derives most of its interest from comparisons to other low-budget horror than as its own property. (2.5/5)

Pretty good, got a little off track for a bit but I liked it overall

This movie relied a lot on jumpy horror, which gets old real quick. It has some good scenes tho.

No, it's not a comedy horror. It's not unintentionally amusing either. The dialogue is perfunctory at best and the acting, Barbara Crampton aside, sub-par. I was briefly convinced there where two movies of the same name, but I was mistaken. An extra half star for being mercifully short.

David Cross should have been in this hipster horror movie. The critics are clearly detached from reality in this score though with a whopping 95% or close to it. It's not that great. It's ok. Scary in places. It has a lot of gore by the end. The pacing is a little off. It tricks you into thinking it's a ghost story when really it is a bloody massacre. Then the ending they try to bring it back to the intellectual side of things with a clever little confusing twist that kind of makes you wonder ‘what just happened?' Critics eat that up. Regular people are like ‘what just happened?' It feels a little too clever, so clever that it comes full circle and is a bit stupid. Plus all the deaths except for a couple at the outset feel a bit meaningless, like red shirts at a Star Trek convention. We get very little characterization out of these expendables and so it evokes little terror but more of an ‘oh that guy just exploded.' There is very little time to work up the feeling of doom, rather doom just drives right through the living room all of a sudden and then ‘what just happened?' The seance is good though. That's the best part of the movie really, the seance.

"We Are Still Here" is a paean to the great 1970's horror movies. It's totally campy. Scary, too. Even the setup is a 70's cliché: The Sachettis (Barbara Crampton and Andrew Sensenig), having lost their teenage son from a car accident, have decided to take a geo cure and move. But their new location is not Mexico or the Bahamas; it's a spooky old house outside of a freezing cold rural town (The film was shot in and around Rochester, New York in February). Their choice makes no sense, but since when do horror movies make sense? No sooner than they move in, the usual haunted house stuff begins: pictures falling off the walls, strange clanking sounds in the night, etc. But don't scoff. Things crank up big time after the first half hour. It turns out that the house has evil beings under the foundation that come to life every 30 years and need human sacrifices. I won't bother with any more synopsis. It's not that what happens is new or unexpected; it's more like you're time traveling back to the infamous B horror flicks of the 70's. And man, does filmmaker Ted Geoghegan nail it. He must have spent many hours studying the classic Wes Craven movies and others of that ilk. The film even has that cheesy, grainy 70's look. It's uncanny. The actors know what's up, context-wise, and they ham it up accordingly. Larry Fessenden, playing a friend of the Sachettis, looks and acts like Jack Nicholson after he went nuts in "The Shining." It's no coincidence. (Yes, I know that was 1980. Close enough). The final third of the film is a gore fest, but it's so cartoonish and silly that you're not really scared; you're just laughing nervously. Not to be redundant, but again….it's just like the 70's. It's like Geoghegan is thumbing his nose at modern horror flicks and saying, "Here's a tribute to the movies that laid the foundation." There's a clever end sequence during the credit roll, showing old newspaper articles from the 19th century about supernatural goings on in the little town. I'm not a horror movie fan, but I can't help but recommend this one.

Horrific acting. Unnatural conversations. Conveniently placed plot explanations. The dialogue was about as basic as the could have written. If you took the entirety of the dialogue it would be half of the characters blatantly explaining what’s going to happen with obvious foreshadowing. The overall “twist” if that’s what you want to call it was extremely weak and executed terribly. As short as it was I still feel like I wasted my time. Only gets 1.5 stars because the gore was decent. I guess if you’re 13 years old you might enjoy the movie since it’s easy to understand and there’s lots of blood.

Extremely disappointed after reading all the glowing reviews. This movie suffers greatly not from a lack of budget (the effects are actually pretty decent) but from a horrible script full of clichés (you only get to call it 'homage' if your movie ends up being good), topped off by terrible acting. I truly can't understand the critics (and users!) claiming the acting is 'stellar' - it is, in fact, quite the opposite. I'm sure the awkward dialogue doesn't help, but still. None of the supposedly 'scary' scenes, nor the short and unsatisfying finale are worth sitting through all the trash that comes before. Not worth your time.

Slow Creeper ‘We Are Still Here' Delivers Ghostly Chills