Here - Les plus belles années de notre vie

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.

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).

Usually I do not write reviews but I must admit that this movie left an emotional impression on me and so I highly recommend watching it. Although the movie as a movie could be more engaging and exciting, the idea of the movie itself and the impression it leaves on the viewer is powerful. This movie is spiritual in the sense that it conveys to the viewer that life is brief and that love and family are the most important parts of life. It also shows that history repeats itself in different ways and that some things are permanent or at least more permanent than our individual lives. All happens Here.

'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.

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.