We Are What We Are (2013) User Reviews (108)

A Horror/Drama with Strong Performances and a Great Visual Style

[brando647 · 7/10 · 23 May 2014]

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.

A dull set-up prevents this movie from leaving the lingering impact it could have.

[lnvicta · 5/10 · 11 June 2016]

We Are What We Are is a brooding slow burn with little to no jump scares and disturbing subject matter, specifically cannibalism. Believe me when I say I really wanted to love this movie. Sadly, the first two acts of this movie are a chore. I fell asleep the first time around the 20-minute mark my first watchthrough. It begins with a family tragedy and shows their subsequent grieving period. This family has a secret but it's established early on so we're just watching them do stuff. It's a way to develop the characters and set the mood, sure, but it completely failed to grip my attention. You know where the movie is going right off the bat. It shows its hand too quickly and doesn't gain any momentum until the final act.

The third act is enjoyable, though. It's thrilling, tense, borderline silly at times but all in good fun. The problem is whether it's worth the wait. Like waiting in line for five hours for a roller coaster ride and you finally get on and have a good time, but was the wait really worth the few moments of enjoyment? Honestly, it's entirely up to you. The movie certainly has its perks. The acting is excellent across the board, the daughters in particular, and the cinematography is superbly crafted to give you the eerie vibe necessary to pull off this subject matter. Production value wise, We Are What We Are is quality stuff.

I'd recommend it to horror buffs, specifically those who prefer a slow burn over cheap jump scares. We Are What We Are just happens to be the particular slow burn that's slow to the point that it produces more of a flicker than a flare.

Remake of the Spanish film,But it's a different beast all together.

[waqarr40 · 7/10 · 21 September 2013]

We Are What We Are is an English language remake of the Spanish film Somos Lo Que Hay. The word remake is sometimes looked upon as a dirty word amongst film geeks. Trepidation regarding the quality of remakes will always exist, it's only natural.

Both films are entirely different from one another despite sharing the same premise. Somos Lo Que Hay was (in my opinion) a pessimistic film rife with social commentary in regards to Capitalism and Poverty. We Are What We Are deliberately ignores that commentary and instead focuses in on the religious fundamentalism of the ritualistic family as its central theme. We Are What We Are is not just a mere shot for shot remake; it's a different beast all together.

Director and Co-Screenwriter Jim Mickle lift's the premise of the original film and relocates it from the Inner City of Mexico to the back end of Sleepy Rural Southern America. The film follows the reclusive Parker family and the bizarre rituals they practice.

It all begins when the Matriarch of the family unexpectedly passes away. Devastated and unable to cope with the sudden loss, the Patriarch (Bill Sage) of the family regresses into an emotional collapse. Leaving his two teenage daughters, Iris (Ambyr Childers) and Rose (Julia Garner), to ponder over who will step up to the plate and continue the cannibalistic rituals that the family practice every other Sunday.

The Parker's do what they do under the guise of believing that it is a penance that must be performed in order to be saved in the eyes of the lord. They follow the writings of a diary kept by an ancient patriot relative who suffered through a harsh winter with very little in the way of food supplies, thus resorting to cannibalism out of desperation.

They treat this diary as if it were their equivalent of the holy words of scripture. Thus the diary has been passed down from generation to generation and is seen as a rite of passage into adulthood – in this case the eldest daughter Rose is next in line to inherit its 'teachings'.

The family is kept under the strict ruling hand of the Patriarch -- played with unnerving intimidation by Bill Sage. He is a domineering force as he preaches his beliefs and traditions to the family in order to keep them together and to push forward with the annual ritual. Much like the film as a whole, he has a simmering rage boiling underneath his controlled exterior demeanor that threatens to erupt at any given moment; making him all the more frightening and intimidating.

His dominance makes life all the more difficult for his two teenage daughters who, with the recent death of their mother, are starting to question the ritualistic ways of their existence. They yearn for something else in life and struggle to come to grips with what it is they are. Much like the original film, denial plays an important factor for the siblings as it does for almost everyone else in the film – be it the savages or even the town sheriff denying suspicious foul play in his town. The siblings hide in denial of facing who they truly are until they are forced by cruel fate to face the beast that resides within.

Ambyr Childers and Julia Garner are excellent finds for these roles as they both deliver subdued and nuanced performances. They fit the mold perfectly as the somewhat reclusive children who can't quite fit in with the outside world. They have the frail and pale physical complexity that compliments the dreary and rain soaked atmospheric mood that the film radiates.

While the family prepare for their next ritual, a flood hits the sleepy town washing up evidence of human remains to the surface. This attracts the curiosity of the local town Doctor, played by the always wonderful Michael Parks, who is still haunted by the mysterious disappearance of his daughter. Parks serves as a replacement to the bumbling and fame hungry detectives from the original film. This is actually a wise decision as Parks bring a measure of soul and humanity to the grisly proceedings and is a more then suitable change.

Much like its spiritual predecessor, it isn't a film that relies on an overabundance of plot turns or 'gotcha' moments. It's a very slow and deliberately paced film spanning over the course of four days. This is reflected with its use of stilted yet beautifully composed cinematography made up of a dreary, rain-soaked and moody palette of rustic greys. It shows a surprising amount of restraint and has patience in taking its time building its tension whilst shining the spotlight on its characters and themes.

It's a very unassuming film where the tension is always simmering underneath just waiting to erupt. When it erupts, it grabs you by the throat unexpectedly and bites in hard. Unlike most Cannibal films that focus on gore for gore hound sake, it keeps the gruesome stuff to a minimum. But it is all the more effective for doing so. It is most surprising as the norm for most American remakes is to usually dial the volume way up to eleven. Yet this one is surprisingly restrained, maybe even more so than the original.

As far as remakes go, We Are What We Are is a fascinating case study of a remake done rather well.There is no familiarity between both the movies, despite a few casual sly nods of referencing here and there to the original film, it stands apart as a drastically different film that has something else on its mind and as is, it does stand very well next to its original counterpart. 7/10

Depressing and Creepy

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 30 October 2014]

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")

A good remake of a foreign film... that's rare.

[sstetsko · 7/10 · 22 June 2014]

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.

What We Are is bored and not scared or thrilled

[dfranzen70 · 3/10 · 26 September 2013]

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.

They Are Who They Are

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 11 February 2014]

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.

A solid "meh, alright, cool"

[Howling_at_the_Moon_Reviews · 5/10 · 17 December 2021]

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.

Very enjoyable movie, didn't get bored for a sec

[deloudelouvain · 7/10 · 11 February 2015]

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.

Poor ending

[grmfpharma · 5/10 · 14 August 2021]

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

Not A Creepy Shock Thriller

[Siebert_Tenseven · 9/10 · 4 January 2014]

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.

Dark Drama

[Foutainoflife · 6/10 · 8 February 2019]

This movies comes off as a dark drama about a family with some unusual eating habits. They participate in a ritual that their ancestors created as a form of gratuity or offering to God for seeing them through a time of starvation by way of cannibalism. The mother of this family is to prepare the flesh but when she is accidentally drowned the responsibility falls to her daughters. The daughters find themselves at a moral crossroads whilst a few people are growing evermore suspicious about the family.

It's not a bad film but while the subject matter is horrific the movie is not. There is very little blood or gore and it mostly alludes to the disturbing nature of their actions rather than show it. The story has several holes that could've easily been cleared up through more details and better scripting.

It was going great... until the last 20 minutes

[andretfernandes · 2/10 · 13 September 2020]

The movie has a good story, with good acting, etc... I would give a 7 or 8, but then the las 20 minutes came. Do you know that situation we see in thousands of movies? A character eventually discovers who is the bad guy, and then goes confront him. They fight. The good guy hits the bad guy, who passes out, but doesn't die. Then the good guy simply turns his back and... I guess I don't nedd to finish this sentence. And from there, the sequence of nonsense acts continues: the daughter runs to the neighbor house. Instead of saying someting like "help, my father wants to kill us"... no, she just keeps crying, leaving the neighbor with no idea of what is going on. Guess what? Father kills the neighbor. And last but not least, a 14y old girl was able to hold her father (a big farm guy) agains the table, preventing him to move.

Nice and Slow

[politehere · 7/10 · 24 September 2014]

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.

Moody Cannibal Film Scores

[gregsrants · 7/10 · 20 October 2013]

A few years ago, KillerReviews wrote a piece on how the future of horror was resting on the shoulders of Eli Roth, Ti West and Rob Zombie. We went on at length on how these three filmmakers have kept the genre afloat amongst a few lean years of mediocre horror entries. Just 18 months removed from the editorial, we can come to the counter of humble pie and report that we casually overlooked a few names – and one those is director Jim Mickle. Jim first grabbed our attention with Mulberry Street (2006) and followed it up brilliantly with Stake Land (2010). He's back behind the camera again in 2013 with We Are What We Are, a thriller that deals with a family of cannibals fulfilling their cultural traditions. A remake of the Spanish/Mexican film "Somos lo que hay" (2010), We Are What We Are was brought to Toronto to open the Toronto After Dark Film Festival last Thursday and delighted audiences with its disciplined and patient approach to storytelling. The film takes us inside the home of the Parkers where we meet family patriarch Frank (Bill Sage), daughters Iris and Rose (Ambyr Childers and Julie Garner) and young son Rory (Jack Gore). From an outside view, the Parkers look like your average quiet family. But when a tragedy strikes the family, the two young daughters are thrust into role that they don't exactly find themselves at comfort which leads to a fork their personal development between family and a societal right and wrong. At the center of their impasse is their father Frank who has continued the ancestral custom of cannibalism as part of the modern family tradition. The practice involves kidnapping townsfolk and keeping them locked up until the eldest female is tasked at preparing dinner. We learn through a family journal that the kinfolk exercise has been in practice through countless generations, but when a torrential rain storm begins to wash up human bones down river, a fellow local named Doc Barrow (Michael Parks) begins to connect various observations together which eventually lead him to conclude that the Parker's may have something to hide. Beautifully captured on screen, We Are What We Are tells a complex story without gratuitous scenes of unnecessary violence in order to relay the horrific idea of cannibalism. Hats are particularly tipped to the perfectly cast actors who brilliantly enliven the screen with their nuanced performances. Actors Ambyr Childers and Julie Garner are particularly riveting to watch as they struggle with the morality of their actions against their love of family and respect for their father's wishes. As the subtlety of the film's pace begins to mount towards the film's climax Nick Damici's screenplay will have audiences too involved in the details of the story to ponder ahead as to how the final reel will conclude. Iris and Rose will have adult decisions to make that could affect the continuation of the family bloodline and it is their actions that will fuel the more macabre and satisfying resolve. We Are What We Are might not follow the typical road map for a conventional horror film. The screen does not soak with blood, jump scares are nearly non-existent and character development drives the film instead of simple filler between family meals. Jim Mickle has proved for a third time that he is a force to be reckoned on the horror playing field. His ability to search out and work on good material combined with his ability to tell his story without falling to the pressure of fast audience gratification is a testament to his skills and patience behind the camera and he has quickly risen as a talent to watch going forward.

Not Worth the Cost of Admission

[kburditt · 1/10 · 26 September 2013]

I saw this movie at a free sneak preview. So the cost of admission was 0 but the real cost was 2 hours of my life I'll never get back. This is a 'horror' film about ritual cannibalism. Thats not the problem, there are many good films about cannibalism in the horror and comedy genres. This is not a good film in any genre, nor is it bad enough to be a cult classic. The acting by the two young female leads is quite good and hopefully this film will be a minor footnote in their careers. The plot line is interesting although the premise gets pretty thin the minute you start thinking it through. What is the problem - it is SLOW, really really SLOW. Also, the violence and horror is gratuitous and graphic. It is slasher porn against women. (Why only women, why not men?) I don't know if this is really a spoiler but the graphic final event is shocking only in the activity, because otherwise it is a completely ridiculous moment. The action is so repellent it shuts off the natural instinct to laugh at an otherwise stupid scene. The director should have stuck to a basic premise of a fundamentalist serial killer living in a community and a family that is either ignorant of or traumatized by him. That would make sense. But adding graphic cannibalism made a potentially good film into a stupid film. Is this a good teenage date movie? Not really - its really really slow and those slasher scenes come over half way through the film. Skip this film and download Delicatessan or Fried Green Tomatoes - those two hours of your life won't be wasted watching either.

Family Honor or a Sense of Right and Wrong How does one decide

[bdsm13 · 7/10 · 29 October 2013]

What makes a movie a horror movie, or a genre movie, scares, kills, gore, a mixture of theses. We are What We Are the latest from Jim Mickle, a re-imagining of a Mexican film by Jorge Michel Grau by the same title. Now I will admit I am a big fan of Jim Mickle and Nick Damici and their previous films Mulberry Street and Stakeland.

We are What We Are is an intense, thriller about a family, the Parkers who have lived on their property since early colonial times in upstate New York. They are good God fearing folk who keep to themselves and have their traditions. The movie starts with the mother Emma Parker dying in a freak accident during a bad rain storm. This changes the family dynamic and the 2 teenage girls Iris the oldest and Rose are now thrust into the role of patron of the family. Iris and Rose both struggle with wanting to please their domineering father, while protecting their baby brother and their budding adolescence.

This family has secrets and as the movie proceeds, these secrets are slowly exposed as we see the family moving towards a climax. On a parallel path we see a doctors investigation to a mysterious discovery and the teenage daughters struggles with the realization of what role their mother had in the family. This is a family that is run by the father and their traditions have been passed down for many generations and when they are revealed I was both horrified and enthralled.

This movie moves at a good if a bit slow pace but with a film score that helps build the suspense and mood till, you know something has to happen, but will it be what we all expect. It is brilliantly shot with some dark and disturbing scenes. It does not disappoint and the ending will leave you talking for sure.

Overrated here

[telllaura · 3/10 · 23 July 2020]

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.

We are what we eat...is more like it.

[jamiedecourley · 7/10 · 4 November 2013]

I admit it, I love the cannibal exploitation flicks of the Seventies. This film however does not fit into that genre or any other genre for that matter. I remember watching the Mexican version of this film a few years ago and as much as I'd love to be pretentious and tell you how much better the original foreign language film was, I really can't. The exception to the rule my movie fan friends. This film was far superior to the even slower moving foreign original. Yes, the first forty minutes are agonizingly slow but, sometimes that's OK as long as the performances are engaging. Special mention to film legend Micheal Parks who adds credibility to A largely unknown cast. Even with the first half of the film being horribly slow moving there is fascinating story building in the silence and the melancholy rain that bears down relentlessly. Plus, this film has one of my all time favorite endings. As for my love of the cannibal genre, guess I'll keep waiting for Eli Roth's "Green Inferno" to feed that monster. I think it's still coming out sometime this decade.

Great Movie...Up Until The Last 10 minutes!

[mr-roboto-kilroy · 3/10 · 18 August 2016]

Let me first start off with telling you that I loved this movie up until the last 10 minutes. It was slow moving, but not boring. The cinematography was excellent, acting was superb, there was suspense, there was a feeling of creepiness and the plot was very interesting. The problem is with the very end. It didn't follow through with the believable line of thinking that it had been up until that point. These people believed that they had to eat human flesh in order to stay alive and that regular food was poison to them. They had always eaten their human meat cooked like we would beef, pork or chicken, but at the last five minutes the two girls suddenly started to eat their father alive. That would be like me, after eating cooked meat all my life, suddenly just biting into a cow while it was still alive. The children were not crazy. They were just taught from birth that they needed human flesh to live. So why at the very end, did the writer decide that they out of the blue liked raw meat. Sure they wanted to kill their father and were biting out his jugular and wrist veins, but they weren't spitting it out. They just kept eating him. Didn't make sense to me. Too bad, because it was doing so well. Unbelievable ending. It's like a train speeding rapidly down the tracks and for some random reason, jumps the tracks and crashes.

"All this damn rain gets in the bones"

[doug_park2001 · 8/10 · 19 April 2014]

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.

A family that dines together...

[horizon2008 · 7/10 · 21 October 2013]

We Are What We Are unravels very slowly. So slowly that sometimes its just the revelation you're hanging in there for (if you haven't arrived at the movie not knowing what its about of course). Maybe that was my problem, I knew the subject matter and kind of wanted it to get to the good stuff quicker than it did. But once that moment comes its all the more shocking for the wait.

So many films pile on the shock and gore too quickly and it desensitizes the viewer to the point where what was supposed to be horrifying just doesn't work. In We Are What We Are, when it gets to the moment where the girls have to perform their first kill you feel you're right there in the room with them and experience what it must be like to have to undertake what is expected.

The film is grim, not just the obvious scenes but it exists like some crossover between modern times (the inclusion of mobile phones) and some time set two hundred years ago. The music the father plays while they dine is on an old record player with a crackling LP playing haunting songs which accompany the hideous spread in front of them. The close up shots of their bowl of "soup" looks incredibly gross knowing whats in it.

There's a curious beautiful moment too where the use of music accompanies the girls marking out a body for butchering. Its almost moving in a way that really shouldn't be at all, given what they are doing. When it finally gets to the end scene its quite unexpected and some may say a little out of place with the whole scenario, although considering how the family have been surviving up until now maybe its not too surprising.

well the acting was good.

[daggersineyes · 2/10 · 30 October 2014]

..... but that's about all it's got going for it. The pacing is so slow it's almost stationary. The characters are unsympathetic, the backstory is muddy and silly. There are no scares or jumps and they somehow manage to suck all suspense out of the scenes that could have been scary. Maybe it works as a family drama about religious fanaticism and grief - I don't know, so if that's your genre of choice you might enjoy it. But if you're a horror fan or into spooky chillers or suspenseful thrillers look elsewhere. The snooze-fest story was capped off by an out of character ending so ludicrous and over the top I could only laugh at it. Nothing in the preceding story lent any credence to that ending - it was there as a desperate attempt to "shock and awe" but ends up amusing and making people roll their eyes. I don't know if the original Spanish version is any better but it sure as hell couldn't be worse. If I was you I'd try that one instead of this one.

Slow Burn

[thelastblogontheleft · 7/10 · 4 April 2017]

This was an interesting one for me since I think it did a great job at walking that line between a dark thriller and an actual horror film. It relies much more heavily on a general sense of dread and a more relatable feeling of claustrophobia that results from being trapped in an overbearingly traditional family. This is an American remake of the 2010 Mexican film of the same name (also known as Somos Lo Que Hay), which was directed by Jorge Michel Grau. I went into this movie not realizing it was a remake and while I do wish I had seen the original version first, I'll definitely watch that at some point as well because I'd love to compare the two!

After the sudden and mysterious death of their mother (which we witnessed in the opening act — it really set the tone for the remainder of the movie), daughters Rose (Julia Garner) and Iris (Ambyr Childers) are left to carry on with their domineering father, Frank (Bill Sage), and their naïvely innocent younger brother, Rory (Jack Gore). We quickly learn that, in the absence of the matriarch of the family, the eldest daughter must take the lead for an archaic tradition they are about to take part in… one that involves the consumption of human flesh. We learn, by way of one of the daughters reading an old diary, that these traditions have been passed down for generations in their family, stemming from a time when it was necessary to do anything to survive the harsh winters. The family, previously content to live solitarily, are now thrust into a spotlight of sorts, both from the expected grief over their wife and mother's passing, and from the local doctor, Doc Barrow (Michael Parks), pairing up with a deputy sheriff (Wyatt Russell) after he finds evidence of Kuru during the mother's autopsy and bone fragments thanks to a days-long rain storm. Everything comes to a head with a fairly shocking ending as people are forced to get desperate.

** SPOILERS! **

Firstly, I think it's used so often in horror movies, but in this particular one I LOVED the atmosphere that the non-stop rain added, I think in great part because it actually tied into the story in a significant way and wasn't just a random weather occurrence added in to make things more spooky. The heavy rain resulting in some upheaval of trees and land is what caused Doc Barrow to find the bone fragments to begin with, which aided in his further investigating the family… it was a clever plot point that not only helped in a key part of the story but also definitely did add to the brooding atmosphere.

I, naturally, loved the brief sighting of Nick Damici (who was so awesome in Late Phases the following year, and who also co-wrote this film with director Jim Mickle) — he plays a sheriff and you only see him for a short bit but YAY NICK! On the flip side there is also a brief appearance by Larry Fessenden and I just have yet to understand his appeal or why he's in every damn movie ever.

It did a great job at addressing issues surrounding both religion and deeply-rooted tradition, and the effects both can have on childhood and development — we see these daughters wanting desperately to be like other kids their age, but told that "this is how things have always been done" and asked to take on responsibilities that should not only be beyond their capabilities as teenagers but beyond their capabilities as human beings. We see the conflicting desires to please your parents and to do what's expected of you in a stoic and noble way but also wanting to appease the part of you that may want to rebel, or even just the part of you that wants to remain young and innocent.

I think this concept is really shown when it comes to the budding romance between Iris and Deputy Anders. He has obviously had a crush on her for a long while but she seems like she's unsure what to even do with such information — almost like she doesn't believe it. When they finally have a chance to be alone, she goes into overdrive… like she's either so unfamiliar with how romances typically go, or she's so desperate for a chance to escape her life in any way possible, and they wind up having sex within mere minutes of being alone in the woods. Her father finding them and brutally killing Anders — probably the most shocking scene in the movie, and intensely well done — is really a perfect physical representation of the hold he has over her, the control he has over how she lives (or doesn't live) her life.

The scene where the father is angrily chopping trees with an axe and he starts to notice bones in the felled tree is pretty intense. Again, him almost adrift in the swiftly moving stream as he tries and fails to scoop up all of the evidence of their past "traditions" is a great representation of him just trying desperately to keep things "the way they always have been" but everything is slipping out of his grasp.

I thought the ending was kind of great in an odd, cyclical way… the traditions of yore coming full circle to completely envelop the father in ways he never imagined.

Ultimately, I loved that this movie was so much less about the traditionally scary and gory aspects, though they did exist. You become invested in it for the character development, the atmosphere, the crime-solving aspect of Doc Barrow investigating, the perfectly ominous music, the lush cinematography, and then you're like… oh, right, they also eat people. COOL.

Slow, but a finale worth remembering.

[Geeky Randy · 7/10 · 7 August 2015]

Childers plays the eldest child in the Parker family and after her mother's accidental drowning, she must take the lead in a very horrific family tradition. Meanwhile, Parks plays a doctor who refuses to give up the search for his daughter that went missing years ago, and his autopsy exam of Ma Parker (DePaiva) lands him a connection to a family that might know a thing or two about his quest. Slow, but Mickle sets a great tone, and we are ultimately led to a very memorable finale that will especially satisfy those hungry for a cannibal-horror flick. Parks and Sage are the same as always, but they're good at what they do.

★★★ (out of four)