User reviews

In my recent horror movie craving, I came across WE ARE WHAT WE ARE after seeing a few brief mentions of it when it premiered at Cannes in 2013. I'd forgotten all about it until I saw it sitting on the shelf at my local department store and couldn't remember what it was that had interested me in it in the first place, but I figured I'd give it a go. I refreshed myself on the premise and settled in for the movie, soon finding myself pleasantly surprised. It was nothing like I expected, and this turned out both good and bad. But first, a little information about the premise: the film is a remake of a 2010 Mexican horror film that I was unfamiliar with, and it follows a family known as the Parkers. Living in a small town somewhere in America, the Parkers generally keep to themselves. Their neighbors seem to know very little about them but view them as a pleasant little family. As a massive storm batters the town, the family matriarch dies and the father, Frank (Bill Sage), is left to care for three children: Iris (Ambyr Childs), Rose (Julia Garner), and young Rory. Their mother's death couldn't have happened at a worse time, as the family is approaching time for one of their more unusual traditions: Lamb's Day. As the family's disturbing secrets are revealed, the town's doctor (Michael Parks) finds a clue that might lead to information on his daughter's disappearance and his investigation leads him a little to close to the Parker's family tradition.

WE ARE WHAT WE ARE is a tough call. There are a lot of elements I liked but there was a bit that put me off. For starters, the pacing is nothing like what I expected. I don't know exactly what I thought the movie was going to be, but I sure didn't believe it to be a slow-burning, high-tension horror piece. In what I expect is a major complaint from others, the movie is very slowly paced. There are a lot of long shots seemingly used to highlight the film's dark atmosphere. It's a very high contrast film with very little actual color. There should be no complaints about the film's cinematography from Ryan Samul; if anything in the movie is pulled off near perfectly, it's the moody lighting and muted colors that give the movie a very defined style. So I can understand why so much effort was made to utilize it, but even the dialogue is delivered in such a way to make the movie feel longer than it is. There are a lot of quiet moments and, when anyone speaks, it's generally in hush tones. Everyone here is muttering as if every word spilling from their mouths is a dark secret (though I guess some of it is). It all results in a very dreary movie and it's hard to get excited about something so depressing. Actually, that's probably the perfect way to describe the feel of WE ARE WHAT WE ARE: depressing.

But that doesn't mean it's not a good movie, even if it does leave you feeling sort of drained by the end. The performances in the movie are actually really, really good. The film's four main stars…Sage, Childers, Garner, and Parks…are great. Frank Parker (Sage) is a man set in his ways. Lamb's Day is a tradition that's been carried out in his family for generations and he will continue to abide. He never once questions his actions or what he is putting his family through. As far as he's concerned, this is God's will. The sisters, Iris and Rose, realize that what their doing is monstrous. Their minds are a little more modern and they recognize exactly what they're doing and how wrong it is. But Iris, the eldest daughter, has the responsibility to see it through and she agrees to continue to appease her father while quietly hoping she'll be gone before the next time she's called upon to perform her duties. Rose, on the other hand, wants out and she wants out now. She wants nothing to do with it and, more importantly, she wants to save her little brother from falling into their father's insane beliefs. Michael Parks as Doc Barrow is a nice addition as well. I've never really seen him in such an expanded role and a film as gloomy as this seems perfect for his tense, deliberate line delivery.

The performances and the cinematography are so well done that it helps forgive the film's snail pacing. Then there's a bizarre climactic final sequence to close the movie that goes completely against all the mood and atmosphere building of the previous hour and a half to blast the audience with some shock value that doesn't quite sit right within the film. I can sort of see what the filmmakers were going for but that doesn't stop it from coming across a little too amusingly, especially in execution. I won't spoil it here but I would recommend giving WE ARE WHAT WE ARE a viewing to find out for yourself. It's an engaging horror/drama with a strong cast and a great sense of style that overcomes it's few flaws, and it'd work well as entertainment for a quiet night rental.

The Parker family is fasting following and old family tradition. When the matriarch, Emma Parker (Kassie DePaiva), goes to a hardware store in the nearby small town during a rainstorm, she does not feel well, has an accident and dies. Her husband Frank Parker (Bill Sage), who is the owner of a trailer camping area, grieves her death and forces her older daughter Iris (Ambyr Childers) to assume the responsibility for keeping the family tradition, feeding them and nursing her teenage daughter Rose (Julia Garner) and her young brother Rory (Jack Gore). He also gives Emma's journal to Rose with the history of their family to learn their traditions.

Meanwhile Sheriff Meeks (Nick Damici) and Deputy Anders (Wyatt Russell) are investigating cases of missing persons in the skirts of the town. Doc Barrow (Michael Parks), who lost one daughter that has disappeared, is carrying out Emma's autopsy and finds an important discovery that will connect the missing cases with the Parker family. What is the tradition of the Parker family?

"We Are What We Are" is a depressing and creepy remake of a 2010 Spanish movie "Somos lo que hay". The story is developed in slow pace in a depressive atmosphere and the acting is top-notch. Unfortunately the screenplay discloses the mystery too soon but the gore conclusion is gruesome and hard to be seen. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Somos o Que Somos" ("We Are What We Are")

Having seen and quite enjoyed the Spanish original I was a bit concerned about seeing it remade. My concerns were unfounded though as it turns out since, while the director did use the general idea of the original, he did not so much do a remake as a spin off. The setting, characters, general plot, and ending all very significantly deviate from the original, and there is even a detailed back story added which creates, if not sympathy, at least comprehension for the acts this family does.

The movie itself is beautifully developed to create both a very plausible realism and very well defined characters. It is these characters that are the goal, and the movie does not resort to needless gore to satisfy cruder appetites. The acting is carried off quite flawlessly, and we do find ourselves at least rooting for the children to some degree. All in all it was well worth the watch.

Would I say it is better than the original? Well, given that they are both very different it would be unfair to pit them against each other directly. I will say I did prefer the original overall as it was first, so it took some of the novelty out of the second, and the original made it more of a sort of very twisted coming of age tale than the second movie did, and I really liked that dimension of it. But if I look at them more as apples and oranges, I would say they both are very well done and each earns its place as a highly recommended piece of work.

A reclusive family prepares for its unique yearly tradition during a torrential rainstorm in We Are What We Are, a horror thriller that provokes neither horror nor thrilled reaction. The movie is paced a little bit too deliberately, and moments that should frighten with their suddenness are telegraphed well ahead of time by way of lingering, loving tracking shots. It's a movie without a message and with a minor- league plot, where solid performances are betrayed by an ungratifying ending and unrealistic (and unexplained) character development.

I wanted so badly to like this movie. It's a horror film, part of a genre that appeals mostly to a particular set of people. Most people don't seem to just sort of tolerate horror movies; they're usually rabid fans or equally opinionated detractors. In any event, the intrigue of what a quiet, religious family in the middle of the woods might be up to attracted me to the film. Even after I discovered their secret (which may be common knowledge by now, but I won't spoil it), I was curious to know more - the family's folklore and what would happen to them by the end of the movie.

The Parker family is led by Frank (Bill Sage), a heavily bearded man of few words, the kind of guy who brooks no disobedience within his family. Very early in the movie, we meet Emma (Kassie DePaiva), Frank's wife, as she visits a local store for some last-minute items before the storm hits. It's soon evident that Mrs. Parker isn't quite right, and she quickly passes. This means that her responsibilities regarding the family's annual Lamb's Day are inherited by the eldest daughter, Iris (Ambyr Childs). Suddenly, Iris and her 14-year-old sister Rose (Julia Garner) are more involved than they have in the past, thus leading to internal doubts while they protect their little brother Rory (Jack Gore).

Part of the suspense is supposed to involve what actually occurs on Lamb's Day. After Emma dies, a beloved book of hers is passed down to Iris, who learns it's been in the family since the 1700s. But most of what Iris reads is not news to her, and after we've heard just a little bit we can quickly grasp the situation. At this point, Iris, Rose, and Rory are presented as wholly sympathetic, unable to disobey their father but still complicit in his and their own actions.

Meanwhile, as the store abates, the local doctor (Michael Parks) makes a discovery in a creek behind his house that begins to lead him toward the Parkers. Soon, law enforcement in the person of Deputy Anders (Wyatt Russell), is involved as well. We know what they've found, and we're able to seamlessly connect the find to what the Parker clan has been up to, so the suspense on that front is neutralized. The only remaining question is whether Frank Parker - and his kids - will emerge unscathed.

Suspenseful movies, when done right, can expertly manipulate one's sense of dread. A tracking shot as a person approaches a closed door, then reaches for the handle; that can be very spine tingling. But similar shots in this movie took so long to develop that it quickly became obvious what was going to happen next, sort of the opposite of what a director would want his audience to feel.

When we do arrive at the concluding scenes of the film, we're met with an ending that's so over the top that it jumps over the line of sanity into full-blown ludicrousness. It just doesn't make sense for some characters to behave one way for 99% of the film and then make a 180- degree turn in the waning moments. This makes for an ending that's not only offbeat and unpredictable (which would be good) but also implausible, irrational, and unintentionally hilarious. In fact, should you make it to the end, I dare you to not laugh at what's supposed to be scary, gross stuff.

The cast itself is very good, particularly Garner, Childs, and Parks; Kelly McGillis is also onboard as a suspecting neighbor and is fine. The only incongruent acting comes from Gore as the young Rory; in one particular scene, he's obviously supposed to be terrified but instead just looks really mad.

We Are What We Are is a movie without a point, with few new wrinkles to a specific subgenre, weighted down by slow-motion pacing and a mostly uneventful plot that culminates in an unlikely, unappealing ending.

The Parkers, a reclusive family who follow ancient customs, find their secret existence threatened as a torrential downpour moves into their area, forcing daughters Iris and Rose to assume responsibilities beyond those of a typical family.

Director Jim Mickle is known for his films "Stake Land" (2010) and "Mulberry St" (2006), and has really made a name for himself as a rising star in the world of horror. This is probably his best picture yet, and hopefully gets him the praise he deserves and his name to be more widely known.

Mickle did not originally want to direct a remake of the original film, as he dislikes American remakes of foreign horror films. After speaking with Jorge Michel Grau, Mickle and Demici realized they could put their own spin on it. Michael Haneke, Japanese horror, and cult film "Martha Marcy May Marlene" served as inspirations.

I think this film speaks for itself. The pacing, tone, atmosphere... it is very accomplished. Now, granted, I am not familiar with the Mexican version, so I can hardly compare them. But this impressed me.

Not terrible, not amazing... but I was entertained. The pacing was a bit off and I feel like if they had really thrown it into "thriller" it would have been a bit more engaging. The two lead girls did a great job. Would recommend.

I would not call it a horror movie even if there were some bloody parts but it was for sure a good movie. Starting slow and building the suspense up every minute. I really enjoyed watching this movie. I guess they put it in the horror genre because some people might get offended by the story but I wasn't at all shocked. I'm pretty sure there must be sicko's like this in our miserable rotten world. If you want to watch a nice thriller with a good plot then you must for sure watch this movie. You won't regret it. Very underrated movie to me when I see the score he only gets. Compared to some really bad movies that still get like 4 stars it goes beyond my comprehension that this one doesn't even get 6 stars. Well I guess that it's every man to his taste.

I went to this film not knowing a thing about it. It really made a difference in the way that it was perceived because I didn't expect a thing. I didn't know if I would see something about an inventor, or a heist, or a love triangle... I had no idea.

This film captures the mood of an area of Upstate New York known as Delaware County. If you visit there, you get a feeling that people 'round them parts keep to themselves and don't care for telling anyone from outside what it's like.

In many ways this is not a creepy film with tension building again and again along with sudden "Boo! Scared Ya!" moments. That kind of stuff gets old quickly anyway. The strength of this film is in its professionalism. It's like everyone is trying to rise above the dreaded B level.

At the beginning of the film there are thunderstorms and floods that portend the rumblings of something unusual going on, and throughout there are beautifully photographed scenes showing the drenched landscape and lush vegetation of late spring.

The acting is excellent, most likely because the actors were provided with something that is rare in many films these days - a great script. Along with the mesmerizing musical score you are brought along at an even pace, mystified by the strange occurrences and behaviors.

By the end of the film, which builds to significant tension, you realize something more terrifying than you would have thought, with a horrifying twist, and a final country tune that might give you chills.

Good narrative until the five final minutes... poor ending... it was disappointing.

The movie has a very depressing atmosphere. It's dark, gloomy, and rainy for the most part. The performances are slow, but excellent nonetheless. Rarely do I come across a horror movie with such strong performances. It's probably because it's closer to drama than to the horror genre. There is no real mystery in the movie, because if you have seen 2 horror movies in your life, you can figure it all out 20 minutes into the movie. I kept asking myself; why I kept watching it, despite the deliberate slow pace and the predictability of the story, and I figured it was because the movie relied on good acting, an extreme dramatic experience, excellent camera angles, and an atmosphere perfectly in line with the depressing story of the movie. The ending was rather abrupt and not as dramatic as it could have been. They could have injected more thrills into the movie, especially towards the end, than just Christ-like calmness (in a deranged way of course); although the movie left me with a tinge of unpleasant feeling, which is a quality that not many horror movies manage to achieve these days; and if this was the intended effect, I must say it was effective. In my opinion, the movie is worth watching once or twice, only if you don't mind the slow pace, which I'm sure some of the audience would find boring and might fall asleep before they are frightened, a feeling pretty much absent from the movie that is supposed to function as a horror movie rather than a sleeping pill for the majority.

Overacted on imbued. Lot's of buildup for an unremarkable campy ending. I did wretch once and that's never happened. Could have been a more interesting ending if more care was given.. if the ending wasn't such a joke. Why go through all the trouble to give up at the end. Some tweaks and you could have still had "the big moment". For example, if "that" was the only way they could have gotten out of the house that would have been an ironic without being campy. Waste of time.

Dark, slow but steady film about the apparently normal Parker family, who share a macabre secret ritual. Excellent acting and cinematography bring an immediate realism that really carries this film. WARNING: If gore and grossness get to you, stay away. While WE ARE WHAT WE ARE is not just a constant schlock-fest, there is some pretty disturbing stuff here: Short but graphic scenes of an autopsy, etc.

There's been some debate about whether or not WAWWA is really a horror film, and I would vote a definite "yea" even though the whole mood and atmosphere are different (and better in many ways) than most contemporary horror flicks. There are some elements of suspense, but you know the big "secret" before it's halfway through--the cover also gives a decent hint--so it doesn't exactly work as a mystery. Regardless, the brief flashbacks to the family's ancestors in the 1780s add a great deal.

Though none of the individual elements here are anything that hasn't been done plenty of times before, WAWWA's whole combination of qualities make it a different experience. It's obviously low budget but still far from being another super-amateurish cheapie. The makers of this film did an excellent job with what they had to work with. There are some blank spots--e.g., the body in the water--and a little stronger sense of place would have been nice. At the same time, it's probably better that they don't explain every little thing away.

What a awful film bad acting no feeling no shock nothing at all new all be seen before didn't care for the girls the dad or any one in the film honestly this film is so boring and bad don't waste your life watching this I really cant say anything good about this at all. even the ending wow what a anti climax and the back story pointless and lends nothing to the story at all awful. Cant believe the other scores and reviews and how people liked it let alone thought it was anything other than a b movie story WATCH SOMETHING ELSE ANYTHING sister had no chemistry and you just didn't feel for them or the police guy.

The mother seemed to not even be important at all after the first few minutes never mentioned again.