Thursday, October 1, 2015
Jason talks We Are Still Here
Although I enjoyed It Follows quite a bit, We Are Still Here is the flick I was most dying to see. And see it I finally did. Does director Ted Geoghegan's tip of the hat to classic haunted house thrillers deserve the attention it so . . . um . . . deserves? Or not? Stick with me!
Straight up, as good as It Follows is, We Are Still Here is better. Why? While It Follows tries very hard to be rich in subtext, We Are Still Here wants nothing more than to be a solid, scary haunted house flick with a fresh twist or two. And because of its lack of bullshit, it's the more successful movie of the two.
Both flicks feature 70s and 80s horror-movie style to spare, but We Are Still Here lacks the pretentious nature of It Follows. In fact, there's nothing pretentious about We Are Still Here at all. It knows what it is, doesn't want to be anything more than that, and works so damn well because of it.
There's plenty of scares here, plus a great cast that includes genre faves Barbara Crampton, Larry Fessenden and Monte Markham. And there's the ghost themselves, all played by actors and actresses in brilliant makeup that would make James Wan jealous.
While Hollywood cranks out one generic ghost story after another, We Are Still Here is the real deal. It delivers a fresh and ballsy twist on what we've seen before. And it's a good time to boot. Who could ask for anything more?