Here

Thanks to films like Back To The Future, Forest Gump, Cast Away, & The Polar Express, I'm always intrigued by the "next Robert Zemeckis project". In Here, the esteemed director once again shows his technical prowess and innovation--if lacking in the clear storytelling beats his films are usually known for.

For a very basic overview, Here tells the story of a single plot of land--shot from one angle--over a prolonged period of time (dinosaurs to 2020+). Ostensibly it focuses on the lives and family that Richard (Tom Hanks) & Margaret (Robin Wright) cultivate in that space over a lifetime.

There is no doubt that Here is a technical achievement in cinematography from Zemeckis and DP Don Burgess. Making anything compelling for a single fixed camera point seems to violate the very rules of cinema itself, but it works well enough here to hold viewer interest. "Static" does not equal "boring" in any way.

It is also a return--whether via de-aged AI or present countenance--to the great "everyman" roles that Hanks thrives in. He gives a wonderful performance and his chemistry with Wright has remained true over the years.

Yet, there is something missing from Here and I believe it to be, ironically enough, a lack of time in the Hanks/Wright angle. Though it would violate the entire concept to remove the other character arcs altogether, I found myself not at all invested in the Native Americans, Revolutionary patriots, or 1940s inventors who build up the house's "backstory", if you will. I really only cared about Richard & Margaret (and their orbit) from an emotional angle.

So, despite a few heartwarming/thoughtful moments and some fine technical prowess, Here has its ceiling capped by the needs of that technicality. Perhaps if it had been cradle-to-grave leads on screen things would be different, but the broadness in scope also means a narrowing of time in any one area (to the overall film's detriment).

I did not know what to expect from "Here" for two reasons. First, I have not closely followed director Robert Zemeckis' filmography as of late. I have seen all-time classics from him in the "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and "Forrest Gump" and underrated gems like "Death Becomes Her," "What Lies Beneath," and "The Polar Express," so I have not been exposed to any disappointments from him yet. Second, I knew beforehand that they used artificial intelligence to de-age Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. In a year with remarkable advancements in AI and almost a year after the SAG-AFTRA strikes, "Here" looks to be the first major Hollywood film to utilize the technology to a large extent. Nevertheless, I was willing to go in with an open mind. After seeing it, one vital element holds it back from being a classic, but it is good.

To start, the actors delivered. Thirty years after their pairing in "Forrest Gump," Tom Hanks and Robin Wright give compelling performances as Richard and Margaret Young, as their story of living through the central home is the bulk of the narrative. For the other standout, Paul Bettany commits as Richard's father, Al.

Robert Zemeckis directs this incredibly ambitious film in a way that feels distinctly Zemeckis. The story is unique, with the movie following a (mostly) unbroken shot of a house through centuries, and it deserves a director who can make it feel special. Every film I have seen from Zemeckis that I described was magical, and "Here" is no exception.

I felt the film's opening scene was beautiful and a flawless way to open it. It showcases what the movie will offer over the following 1 hour and 45-minute runtime, making it one of its defining scenes.

I have mixed-to-positive feelings about the film's AI usage. Aside from a few moments, the de-aging was wildly convincing, and it felt like Hanks and Wright were much younger than they are now. I more or less say mixed because I am not the biggest fan of AI usage in media, and I am one of the many who believe that creativity in Hollywood is only human.

Moving on to the negative worth mentioning: the film's time division and utilization are not great. I liked the main storyline revolving around the Young family. However, they occasionally cut to other periods, which felt like excuses to sell the fixed frame gimmick further. The additional plot lines had emotional moments, but the characters lacked development. Any feelings of sadness worked during the time we spent with the Youngs. It may be a necessary annoyance because the main plot may not have satisfied the 1:45 runtime nearly as well.

Overall, "Here" mainly was a success. It will not be an awards season frontrunner, as "Conclave" and "Anora" are also in theaters. However, as a film fan appreciative of Hanks and Zemeckis and intrigued by the experimental nature of this film, the movie was enjoyable.

Technically, the performances, the charming screenplay, the impressive AI de-aging, and the overall execution make the technical score a 9/10.

For the enjoyment score, its utilization of time is my main complaint. Though it weighs the film down, it can not remove how outstanding and entertaining it is. For those reasons, the enjoyment score is a 7/10. I can not call it a masterpiece, but it was better than it had any right to be.

This film takes a different approach to storytelling. Instead of big, dramatic events, it focuses on the small, quiet moments that make up everyday life. It's set in one house and shows the lives of the families who lived there over different generations, with most of the story following one family as they grow older together, and how time changes everything.

It's a simple and thoughtful movie that reminds us to appreciate the ordinary moments we often overlook. It might not be what people expected, but it leaves a lasting impression if you take the time to really watch and reflect. I think the ending was emotional if you put yourself in their shoes.

'Here' is the fifth film directed by Robert Zemeckis starring Tom Hanks, and while not a 2.5-hour epic spanning 3 decades like 'Forrest Gump', it does somehow manage to span 65 million years. This is done via the film's gimmick of the camera sitting in the one spot, focusing on the living room of a house built in the early 19th century (presumably in New Jersey, USA), which includes some flashbacks of what was there on that spot of land before the house was built, including a Native American tribe.

We then follow ~5 families at various times and their life in the living room. It's not all linear, but isn't too confusing, with the main storyline following Al (Bettany) and Rose (Reilly) buying the house after WWII. There they raise their 4 kids, with Richard (Hanks) played by a de-aged/'Big'-era Hanks from ~16. He then meets de-aged Margaret (Wright), and we follow them as they age in the house over the decades. There's some nice moments, some funny bits and some sad scenes.

Even though it's a relatively short film, it probably didn't need at least 2 of these storylines! The editing is sometimes good, but often unnecessarily annoying. It's trying to portray the small moments of life that add up to create the human experience. It gets close, but due to the jumping around, you don't grow too attached to anyone, so the poignancy is lost.

The most intriguing part of this movie, to me, was the clever use of technology to jump back and forth in time - but not space - to show what had happened at one unremarkable place in the area now occupied by New England from the age of the dinosaurs to today. Transitions are often effected by adding picture-in-picture windows on top of the one central video and then jumping to a different time in some of the smaller windows before the whole screen changes to that era as well. I'll confess that that gimmick did grow old after a while, but I still found it at least sometimes clever.

There were, however, problems for me, which some of the previous fourteen reviewers have already pointed out.

The main story - that of the Young family, through its three generations - is not particularly interesting. But the other, minor stories, that are woven in and out of it are really of no interest at all. Why should we care about one of Ben Franklin's sons? Or the Indian/Native American young woman and her young lover? Or even the man who invents the Lazy Boy recliner? Nothing is done to link those stories to the main one, and they are of no interest by themselves.

That was particularly true of the short time we spent with a young African-American couple who live in the house for some unspecified time in our modern era. (They have COVID masks.) All we see of them, really, is that the woman gets along well with her Latina housekeeper. And that the father at one point gives his son what we white folk are told is 'the talk," in which the father tells the son how to behave when stopped by a white police officer so that he doesn't get killed by same. That's pretty much of a cliché, and none of my Black friends ever had such a talk with their parents.

Nothing really holds these various stories together. Since they are not of themselves interesting, and don't reinforce the main one, that's a problem.

I wasn't bored. I could even see watching this movie again on tv, where I could pause it for a break now and then. But once in the theater, while not boring, was enough for me.