Somewhere in Nebraska. Let's say Nebraska. Typical southern state where only trailer parks, benches, and sullen people. This is where one happy family lives. Why happy? And all because the father of the family is a devout Adventist, he strictly observes the canons of Scripture, and keeps the family of strictness. Everything would be fine, but only the way of life of devout Christians gradually raises questions among the few citizens. Suddenly, the glorious town turns out to be not a haven of mystery in the spirit of Dunwich, but quite an urban type, where there is more urban than settled. The secret of the family cuts the eyes. And not only that.
Jim Mickle decided to go the winding path of a psychological thriller. To do this, he chose the right priorities: rural Gothic, religious fanaticism, and monotonous suspense. According to Jim, these components must work to create the necessary voltage. If specifically Mickle played with domestic insanity. The director created an author’s story about a devout fanatic, competently selected the locations, and decided that everything would turn out as it should. But, whether Mickle worked on one hope of enthusiasm, or sincerely believed that the change of genre will help him develop the experience of the director, in any case, this film was boring, but stylish.
Mickle created the perfect “quiet town.” You fall in love with such places immediately if you are a fan of King or Gothic stories. Mickle matched the proportions of south gothic perfectly, and the icing on the cake in his thriller is a whole Michael Parks. But Jim didn't get to tell the story in a way that made it stick. Yes, there is a family, and the food is clear that everything is not smooth with them. There is no emotional intensity, the actors replay portraying the faded shadows of the antagonist, and he on the contrary, plays wooden, and similarly does not cause any emotions.
The main engine is the background of the scene - the same southern state.
The problem with Mickle is that he has focused very much on revealing the life of the family, so much so that this very everyday issue has pushed the entire component of the horror film to the background. And closer to the middle, you're not even watching a thriller, but just a sad story of a traumatic family. The place of blood, southern mysticism gave way to everyday experiences in which the plot ducked, and therefore the final denouement floats out at the very beginning in order to loom before the viewer, tightening the finale with meaningless life, and therefore when the final clusters of horror fall on the viewer, you sigh with relief rather than delight. Alas.
For some reason, I really liked this movie. It's hard to say what it is. This isn’t the vulgar “cannibal horror” that some websites are trying to portray. In my opinion, this is a rather atmospheric drama of one family, like many others trying to hide their skeletons in a closet. Unfortunately, many topics were left out of the film, for example, the true cause of the suicide of the mother or the essence of the religious fanaticism of the father. And although, of course, it can be thought out independently, still it would be interesting to direct the idea.
The tape, of course, does not pretend to be a masterpiece, has a lot of superfluous (for example, all scenes with a neighbor) and unnecessary-incomprehensible storylines (in particular, the love relationship of one of the sisters, although ...). However, the film, in my opinion, is extremely original, unusually presents (but, unfortunately, does not fully disclose) the topic of eating human flesh, the dynamics of the attitude of the main characters to this, which is confirmed by the surprise of the finale of the picture, provoking the curiosity of the viewer to the further fate of the characters.
For some, the film will cause boredom, for others – disgust. Standardly waiting for movies of this genre of blood streams or bogeys popping out of the closet, this tape will disappoint many with its heaviness, some graininess of the image, seemingly illogical actions of the characters. But, trying to see the forest behind the trees, in the film you can find a lot of curious, suggestive. Before you unfold a deep family drama, in which everyone remained for life “wounded” by those truly impressive events that they had to go through.
And, yes, throughout the film sounds luxurious music, wonderfully emphasizing the atmosphere of the film.
I don’t mind slow and even extremely static movies. But there must be some atmosphere and intrigue in the film. It wasn't found here. But there were: an almost complete lack of plot, one dull house, empty dialogues, inconclusive acting (let’s agree not to call silence in a stone-faced camera acting), lack of intrigue, failures in the motivation and actions of the characters (in the end, it is difficult for someone to empathize), and at the same time many superfluous characters who do not need anything.
About the character and actions of the characters in more detail. The father of the family seems to be a stubborn religious fanatic, so why did he not gladly announce to the children that we were going to another world to prepare? And then the scene would not be based on the attentiveness of one of the characters, but was full of intrigue and suspense from all the characters. Why would my father touch a police officer? Nothing to do. This does not fit into the religious-philosophical doctrine, it looks spontaneous and impulsive action, which looks extremely inappropriate episode (however, the preceding romantic episode in the style of “come to the haywalker in the evening”). Well, the final episode is generally something with something - there are no prerequisites that the characters will do this was not on you. The writer obviously wanted to surprise the audience. I was surprised, but at what cost. Well, the investigation, which took a whole one scene - bravo, Sherlock Holmes is delighted. To determine the rarest disease by indirect signs is really talent and experience are needed.
The final nails are driven into the lid by unprofessional shooting with poor (if it was at all) post-processing and a plot (hmm, plot?) borrowed from the Mexican tape.
The pluses of the tape are also available: quite cute actress Julia Garner and quite atmospheric soundtrack.
A small American town whose residents are constantly in sight of each other. Immersed in mundaneity, mixed with traditionalism, they are unaware of the terrible mystery that gravitates over one of the city’s most respected families. However, the Parkers carefully learned to hide it from strangers and curious behind tightly locked doors and almost never saw the faces of strangers eye sockets windows of their huge mansion. But one day there will come a time when the mysteries cease to be such and the Parkers will show the world their true identity.
The director of the extremely successful low-budget horror films “Mulberry Street” in 2006 and “Land of the Vampires” in 2010, one of the most promising American horrormakers of recent years, Jim Mickle, in 2013, presented to the public and film critics his next genre work – the film “We Are What We Are”, which has already managed to successfully ride through a number of prestigious horror film festivals, receive positive criticism and very unexpectedly against this favorable background, low box office fees. Formally, this film is a remake of the 2010 Mexican horror film “We Are What We Are” directed by Jorge Michel Grau, for Jim Mickle, taking as a basis the plot skeleton of the original, has grown on it absolutely his and quite self-sufficient flesh of artistic vision, creating at the output a non-trivial and dramatic horror film on cannibal themes, a film in which there is a clear and verified balance of artistic style, in which the atmosphere and suspense coexist with scenes are very frank and bloody and in which the film does not begin to dominate the filmmakers with a small amount of entertainment, but is not immediately explained by the filmmaker, but by the filmmakers, who is not so much of the filmmakers in the film, who is not so much of the filmmakers in the film, at the film, who is not so much of the film, who is not so much of the film, who is so much of the film, at the film, who is so much of the film, who is so much of the film, at once, who is not so much of the film, at the film, who is “We Are What We Are” should be perceived rather as a challenge to the usual canons of cannibal-movie, a challenge to the traditions of Ruggero Deodato and Rob Schmidt; the film seems to be more acute in its refined accuracy of immersion into the essence of another, marginal being psychosocial drama, rather than a sophisticated sadistic horror, the drama of one family and an entire generation that chose the path of regression and total involution.
Slow and measured narrative begins with a gradual acquaintance with the main characters of the film - Parkers. Masterfully whipping up the atmosphere, flirting with the viewer a Gothic picture, Jim Mickle shows, at first glance, an ordinary American family, as they say, average and average. Characters slowly acquire dramatic depth, saturation and drawing, and now before the viewer there is a family suffering moral and physical humiliation from the head of the family Frank, who brilliantly embodied in the film actor Bill Sage. Certain parallels arise with the film “Woman” Lucky McKee, however, if McKee’s film kept a clear line of transgressive cinema with a mandatory set of shock naturalistic horrors, then Jim Mickle’s tape is more skillful and refined, and it completely surpasses the Mexican original, which could boast only of a sense of meaninglessness of being in the viscous fog of macabra, without offering the audience in return neither a verified dramaturgy, nor interesting directing, only a raw concept. Blood, meat and intestines in the best traditions of the genre begin closer to the finale of the film and as such, they do not produce a shock effect on the viewer, because the director makes it clear to the viewer the true essence of the Parker family by a thin line of hints and half hints. The drama of domestic tyranny and family cruelty turns into a cannibal sketch of creatures suffering from their wild hunger and the horror lies not even in the fact of further murders, but in the very image of such a hellish life. The director is not inclined to sympathize with his characters, but, based on the relatively neutral position of the film, he understands them and the main evil is not cannibalism per se, but male tyranny and female submissiveness, however, with demons dormant in their hearts, who can suddenly awaken and begin to sow a bloody harvest.
The Parker family seems to be an ordinary family, and on the other hand – not too ordinary. After the tragic death of the mother of the family – Emma, whose body falls on the table of Dr. Barrow, the city begins to learn what secrets hidden unsociable Parkers.
If you study the cast of the film, you will see that the director of the film – Jim Mickle here tried on the roles of both writer and editor – and this circumstance usually leads me to not particularly happy thoughts. To create a horror in the full sense of the word Mickle, of course, did not work out - here it carries drama, and the intrigue, I must say, is sluggish, but to the finale of the film I figured out what it was all about. No, not at all to frighten the viewer and not even to impose on him a kind of secret, embellished with thickening gloomy colors. The whole movie is like a story about two sisters. Something like that.
So, the obsession introduces us to the mother - Emma Parker - a woman, whose persecutedness and veiling are visible to the naked eye. It becomes clear at once that everyone in the town knows each other - the cashier in the store turns to Emma by name, trying to figure out if everything is okay with her. What is wrong with her is as clear as ever. It seems that everything is fine - the mysterious atmosphere already envelopes the viewer, causing interest, It is impossible to find fault with the beginning. Next we see the father of the family - Frank, and his three children - Iris, Rosa and Rory. While trying to understand the characters of these four characters, we directly approach the main mystery, the solution of which will be imposed on the viewer almost immediately.
Iris and Rosa come to the fore - two sisters, on whose shoulders, after the death of their mother, an unbearable burden lies, but if Rose understands that now there is an opportunity to change her fate and escape from the current life, Iris strongly resists this, fearing the consequences. She accepts responsibility for her brother and sister, as the eldest of them, and does not even try to contradict her overbearing father. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that, despite the annual tradition of the Parker family, the girls grew up perfectly normal in development, and the experiences of each of them, in fact, form the basis of this creation. However, we will not deny that at times the film turned to the path of the genre of “detective”, thanks to the presence in the plot of such a hero as Barrow – however, I note that this character did not play a special role, nor did the game of Michael Parks seem entertaining. And, since the actors were talking, I will highlight Ember Childers and especially Julia Garner; the latter impressed me in general, although, frankly, I did not expect anything sensible from her.
Since all the cards in the tape are open by the middle, there is nothing to wrestle with, however, I still wanted to see the final - but this, again, only because of the two sisters. What will happen in the end, when the skeletons began to literally jump out of the closets of the Parker family, in principle, becomes clear, and here personally I was interested only in the question of the well-being of Iris and Rosa, because from the very beginning it was not as clear as, say, with Frank. In addition, although the plot is slightly full of standards and clichés, still narrative looks more or less logical - why, where and how - everything is easily explained.
Maybe the tape is not worthy of the highest rating, because partly the idea is really not original, and sometimes the action did not seem exciting, so even I wanted to yawn, well, about the final is generally silent; what I did not expect - I did not expect it. But the attempt to give a good craft, in fact, succeeded - conspicuous nonsense did not notice that even surprisingly somehow. Of course, the film is far from the masterpiece, and I would not advise everyone to watch it, but I was satisfied with the viewing - precisely in terms of focusing on the right characters and the right events. It seems like nothing superfluous.
An ordinary family, a crazy father, obedient daughters, ready to fulfill the craziest ideas of their father. It is quite difficult to say anything intelligible about what you saw, and is it worth talking a lot?
Overall, the picture is quite atmospheric. I have a question about the technical part. What camera was used by the operator that in the darkness so often appears unwarranted graininess? I believe that in a movie that claims to be “professional”, such mistakes do not belong.
The plot is very heavy. The lion’s share of timekeeping you will not see anything interesting. Moreover, at least half of the film, many viewers may not even know what the whole story will lead to. I will tell you right away, such a movie is not often made. The creators of the picture decided on a certain experiment: neglecting the requests of the mass viewer of horror films, they refused the abundance of dismemberment and blood, focusing on the semantic load of what is happening.
Who is this movie for? It is worth several times to think about what you expect from watching this movie - a spectacle or watching "for a tick." I do not rule out that it will find its viewer, but it is difficult to say in advance what percentage of those who are ready to watch an hour and a half film for the sake of just one ending that deserves attention.
3 out of 10
The assessment is extremely subjective, as I expected much more from the film.
The film tells about the Parker family, reminiscent of the life organization and everyday rituals of the Baptist commune of the 50s. They are experiencing the loss of the “keeper of the hearth”, observe fasting and prepare for the “special” day observed by their ancestors since the 18th century.
Jim Mickle had a rather ambiguous movie, since the story is presented in such a way that guesses about the “dark affairs” of the family begin to be confirmed after a certain time. At the same time, by the time of the real horror, the director lets the viewer down extremely skillfully, whipping up the situation with a stunning soundtrack and camera work.
Although the film implies a significant abundance of human blood, it does not have the kind of sadism inherent in such films. The Parker family observe the ritual without much fanaticism - simply and simultaneously disgusting.
However, the film is not ready to boast of logic in the detective part, the development of the scenario action in the form of the disclosure of the Parkers crime by a local pathologist just does “fill in” its implausibility, since most diseases associated with the central nervous system are characterized by tremor and headache, and the instant conclusion of the doctor regarding the occurrence of Parkinson’s syndrome based on cannibalism impresses with his imagination.
In this case, the film can hardly be called bad. There is a share of dark energy in it that strikes at the very heart, making it beat faster. Shocking impressions can be achieved by the most minimal means, without resorting to "dismemberment" and sky-high fountains of blood.
6 out of 10
It is interesting, but almost all the films shot on the topic of cannibalism, be it "Hannibal" with its commercial potential, or this work, they all have their own local, but necessary philosophy. That is, the viewer is not looking at the banal devouring of flesh, but a whole cult associated with this phenomenon.
In the thriller "We are what we are" you can start just not with a cult, but with sectarianism, one unremarkable family of five people walks the path illuminated by Paradise, at least, they think, and from time to time kidnaps ordinary people in order to make them a delicious soup. Apparently, the soup family appreciates so much that periodically, they sit down on a post that is related again to religious overtones.
At the very beginning, the mother of the family, a quiet American town, dies in the incident, and gradually the story merges into this family and the viewer gets acquainted with its members. The mother spent a couple of days of fasting, but the age-old secret of the family gradually with the tide of rains begins to become clear to many residents of the town.
The unhurried style of storytelling gives the viewer tune in to something other than a bloody thriller. The director does not sophisticate his tape with blood and meat, everyone, even in a civilized way, family members torment themselves with the correctness of their actions, some of them are trying to change, and some still believe that they are going the blessed way.
How the drama "We are what we are" realizes itself more, and it becomes obvious that the director did not try to make an atmospheric thriller. This film is more of an experiment of a director who has already established himself in the genre as an independent director. A good film that showed the perspective of its authors, but, unfortunately, could not bring it to the final feast.
6 out of 10
A movie with a claim. There is no special desire to be exquisitely verbal on this occasion. Not the case. The visual is perfect. That coupled with intrigue and good acting work force to watch this movie to the end. And for this reason, the film can not be called bad, although the action proceeds with a viscous timekeeping. Yes, and the main character-father in the tone of the narrative that sometimes watching becomes quite tedious. On his own, he was most worried about the doctor, who is performed by the notorious Michael Parks. I didn’t want to see him at the dinner table.
Although the film is quite atmospheric and creepy (the severity of what is happening is also the reason), but from the category “without explanation”, when the process-action, rather than the meaning, is important according to the idea, which also makes its not the most pleasant contribution-thickener in the general jelly. It doesn't make sense. I wonder what you are. That! Look at the title of the movie. Thanks, I get it. No question.
A small American town whose residents are constantly in sight of each other. Immersed in mundaneity, mixed with traditionalism, they are unaware of the terrible mystery that gravitates over one of the city’s most respected families. However, the Parkers carefully learned to hide it from strangers and curious behind tightly locked doors and almost never saw the faces of strangers eye sockets windows of their huge mansion. But one day there will come a time when the mysteries cease to be such and the Parkers will show the world their true identity.
The director of the extremely successful low-budget horror films Mulberry Street in 2006 and Vampire Land in 2010, one of the most promising American horror makers of recent years, Jim Mickle, in 2013, presented to the public and film critics his last work at the moment - the film We Are What We Are, which has already managed to successfully roll through a number of prestigious horror film festivals, get positive criticism and very unexpectedly low box office fees. Formally, this film is a remake of the 2010 Mexican horror film We Are What We Are directed by Jorge Michel Grau, for Jim Mickle, taking as a basis the plot skeleton of the original, has grown on it absolutely his and quite self-sufficient flesh of artistic vision, creating at the output a non-trivial and dramatic horror film on cannibal themes, a film in which there is a clear and verified balance of artistic style, in which the atmosphere and suspense coexist with scenes are very frank and bloody and in which the film does not begin to dominate the filmmakers, but is not so much of the filmmakers in the film, who is not interested in the film at once in the film, but is so much of the filmmakers, who is not so much of the filmmakers. “We Are What We Are” should be seen as a challenge to the cannibal Movie, a challenge to the traditions of Ruggero Deodato and Rob Schmidt; the film seems more like a drama than a sophisticated sadistic horror, a drama of one family and an entire generation.
Slow and measured narrative begins with a gradual acquaintance with the main characters of the film - Parkers. Masterfully whipping up the atmosphere, flirting with the viewer a Gothic picture, Jim Mickle shows, at first glance, an ordinary American family, as they say, average and average. Characters slowly acquire dramatic depth, saturation and drawing, and now before the viewer there is a family suffering moral and physical humiliation from the head of the family Frank, who brilliantly embodied in the film actor Bill Sage. Certain parallels arise with the film "Woman" Lucky McKee, however, if the film McKee kept a clear line of transgressive cinema with a mandatory set of shock naturalistic horrors, the tape of Jim Mickle is more skillful and refined and it completely surpasses the Mexican original, which could boast only of a sense of meaninglessness of being in the viscous fog of macabra, without offering the audience either a verified dramaturgy or interesting directing. Blood, meat and intestines in the best traditions of the genre begin closer to the finale of the film and as such, they do not produce a shock effect on the viewer, because the director makes it clear to the viewer the true essence of the Parker family by a thin line of hints and half hints. The drama of domestic tyranny and family cruelty turns into a cannibal sketch of creatures suffering from their wild hunger and the horror lies not even in the fact of further murders, but in the very image of such a hellish life. The director is not inclined to sympathize with his characters, but, based on the relatively neutral position of the film, he understands them and the main evil is not cannibalism per se, but male tyranny and female submissiveness, however, with demons dormant in the depths of their souls who can suddenly awaken and begin to sow a bloody harvest.
A huge plus of the film was the deliberate camerainess of what is happening. Avoiding too much scope, Jim Mickle's film looks like a neo-Gothic variation of cannibal passions. Director Jim Mickle confidently flirts with the viewer with the sinister atmosphere created by the cameraman Ryan Samul, turning upside down the representations of both Gothic and cannibal cinema, because at first the visual of the film pushes on another story in the spirit of the “Spell”, but the plot, however, has many surprises and a finale that does not promise a bold point in the history of the Honourable Parkers.
In addition to the magnificent realistic play of Bill Sage, bright performances in the film were demonstrated by Julia Garner (Rose), Cassie De Piva (Emma), Kelly McGillis (Marge), Michael Parks (Doc Harrow) and Nick Damichi, a longtime creative associate of Jim Mickle, a constant co-writer of the script in all the works of his friend, in this picture clearly played the secondary role of the sheriff. The main characters of the film do not suffer from excessive archetypalism and they are in permanent internal development until the final, and the secondary only serve as an addition and a bright background.
So, the film “We are what we are” in 2013 is not so much a remake of a relatively recent Mexican horror, as quite independent and self-sufficient work. High-quality and intriguing tape, combining elements of family drama, Gothic and cannibal horror film. One of the most interesting horror films of 2013, recommended for mandatory viewing for all connoisseurs of the genre.
9 out of 10