Here (Aquí)

I was excited to see this film at the AFI film festival last night. But after watching it, I was disappointed with the film. Robert Zemeckis of "Back to the Future" fame loves using technology to illustrate his films. In this one, he uses different picture-in-picture panel inserts to show what was happening at various times in the same place (i.e. "Here" - someplace in New England or Pennsylvania). He also uses de-aging techniques to turn Tom Hanks and Robin Wright into teenagers (done much better than Scorsese's "The Irishman"). However, these pluses don't make up for a mediocre and predictable story that concentrates on Tom Hanks (and Robin Wright's) initially exuberant youth that is wrecked by the realities of adult life. Been there, done that. Parallel stories of Benjamin Franklin's son, a Native American, an early aviator, the alleged inventor of Laz-e-boy, and a black family who all occupied the same space at different times eventually serve more as distractions rather than enhancements. The gimmicky use of the panels eventually becomes tiresome as well as the use of AI to create ancient times and animals. The main actors (Hanks, Wright, Bettany, and Reilly) are all excellent but I only wish they were given a better screenplay to work with.

Much has been made in the advanced publicity for this movie of reuniting the "Forrest Gump" gang, Hanks, Wright, and director Zemeckis. While that is all appropriate it in a way takes away from what this movie is really about. It has lots of stars playing lots of interesting characters but at its core it is a story about a location, a piece of land, a room in a house, and what happens there over the eons.

I say eons because the story actually begins on a prehistoric Earth when dinosaurs roamed then met their eventual fate when asteroids allegedly wiped them out. We see a time-lapse of the land changing, of vegetation growing, of Native Americans arriving and hunting. But always this one same plot of land.

Then, in the 1700s we see trees being felled and a large house being built, we later learn it was a Franklin home, yes that family which included Benjamin. We get quick glimpses of historical events, like the revolt against England, the early beginnings of aviation, the flu epidemic of 1918, WW2, student deferments during the Vietnam time, the invention of television, the 1960s arrival of The Beatles. However none of that is depicted dryly, the story shows the people and how they participated in or were influenced by the changes. Many times a TV running in the background helps us know the time, like watching Jane Fonda exercise or a clip from the old Dean Martin and Ed Sullivan TV shows.

The unique cinematography technique is to use a static camera and standard focal length from one spot in the room where family activities commonly took place. About the same view as a person in one seat in a theater viewing a stage play that covers many generations. Or a person sitting in the corner of that room for several hundred years.

Tom Hanks is Richard. His family were not the original residents of the house but are mainly featured in it.

Robin Wright is Margaret who eventually marries Richard. They have children, Richard puts his painting passion on hold to get a job that makes money to support his growing family. They get old in the house, and as the story ends both of them are not far from the ends of their lives.

My wife and I watched this movie at home, streaming on Prime. Because we are in our 70s and have seen a lot, and can identify with many of the tings depicted here, we found it totally absorbing and entertaining. Maybe younger viewers would not identify so well. But we consider this a fine movie, one of the better ones we have seen in recent years.

Edit: Two months later I got the DVD of this movie from my public library and watched it again. The experience was even better, knowing where it was headed and being able to appreciate some of the finer points. The disc also has an interesting extra which talks about and shows the technique that was used to de-age the faces of the main characters.

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).

Here is not a film for everyone. It tries something different, with a single focused camera angle and a story that takes place over hundreds (or millions) of years. But that is also part of the issue that keeps it from excelling. We get little time with every story point, with most scenes taking 1-5 minutes before jumping to the next scene. It also takes a bit to get going before we get to the meat of the story.

If it had been a bit more focused on our main group of characters, the ending would have had a much bigger impact. There was also a bit too much CGI that looked rough and a focus on getting characters right up to the camera for scenes all felt a bit too forced. It's also a bit over the top of how much stuff happens in a single space.

In the end, 'Here' is an ambitious film that ultimately fails to deliver a fully satisfying story as it's too concerned with its notion of showing you everything that has happened in this one spot and making the camera angle the main focal point of the story.

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.