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.

LIKES:

Good Acting

Realistic On Many Facets Of Life

Dynamic use of Set/Setting

Creative Transitions

De Aging Technology

Some Fascinating Connections At Times

I loved the Artistic Angle At the Times

Relevant/Relatable

Emotional

Summary: The movie's advertising has not lied to you, Here is a film that is truly one of the most unique concepts we've seen in a while. The movie relies on one to enjoy the single-camera/location fixation and tell a story about time's impact on life and the people moving through it. Zemeckis has accomplished this task on many levels and managed to utilize the space well and keep the shot dynamic despite being so static. Dynamic set changes help make this piece fascinating, with the idea of furniture changes being a characteristic of the house itself that is impressive and serves as a metaphorical window to life. I loved seeing this room lived in and the families who each called the villa home, seeing their interactions, auras, and personalities give a different light to the scene and tell their own micro-stories. Transitions occurred via outlines of photographs, drawing attention before rippling into a new scene, the technique is smooth and seldom overdone for me. It held many facets that were creative but never lost the anchor to realism to make this a nice, balanced piece.

As for the story and acting, an A-list of talent has helped bring this movie to life and achieve the goal of being a look at life. Here is a film that relies heavily on being relevant and the cast to make that relevance come to life. In regards to the story, it seldom bleeds away from people living life, taking snippets of various periods and reflecting them in the times. The ups and downs are beautifully captured on screen, and Zemeckis' vision helps drive the concepts home and hit you with that emotional punch this movie promised. When the relevant tales hit me, it only further strengthened my connection to the film, and I found my inner self reflecting on what this movie had to teach me. The acting is there to give words to the visions, with much of the dialog poetic without being too Shakespearean in its delivery. Bettany was a surprise to see, and though not quite as engaging or dynamic as his Disney films, it still manages to impress me with a stellar performance of the Boomer generation facing the fast changes befalling the world. Wright's return to the screen is fierce as her character is torn between fun and frenzy, a brilliant portrayal of struggles that befell so many in her spot during the great decades of change. Hanks is, of course, just as talented as he has been, incorporating elements of his other characters into each moment of his life and doing it with that same class and vigor he almost always brings to the screen. It's a chemistry that works, this family atmosphere appearing so natural and almost authentic with strong leads to guide the characters and never fall too much into the Hollywood portrayals. The age portrayal technology also gets props for the work it did to make the impossible possible, and though I'm not the biggest fan of the use of such tactics, this was the right movie to use it.

DISLIKES:

Incoherent Story Angles

Very Ambiguous Connections

Boring At Times

Difficult to Connect To Most Tales

Sad And Depressing

Perhaps Too Artistic

Summary: Yet, an artistic movie comes with a potential risk in modern commodities of movie making, and this film amplifies those costs that come with such a unique approach. My biggest complaint comes with the non-linear storytelling and the sort of random drops into some of the stories. The tale uses one of the periods to serve as visual chapter headings to usher the next theme of life but serves little to the story and, at times, feels short-changed and worthless. This, unfortunately, extends to just about every other tale in the movie that is not related to Hanks, making them feel last minute and unnecessary. A few times, there are some clever connections if you pay attention, but for the most part, the ambiguous and chaotic jumps between lives did little to make an engaging story worth the diversion time. Eventually, the sadder parts of life start to become the focus, and for people like me, a bombardment of sadness doesn't usually entertain or make me enjoy the film. The last third of the film is hard to watch, and those who might have recent or traumatic episodes in their lives need to be cautious not to get triggered. If you are like me, then getting drowned in the beautiful moments of sadness becomes overwhelming and excessive, dragging out the film further when the pace Is tripped by the unnecessary divergence mentioned earlier. When that happens, the movie starts to really fall in terms of enjoyment and becomes a bit of a chore to get through despite the smaller runtime.

The VERDICT Zemeckis' gamble pays off in terms of making a movie that just captures life without being a documentary. Here has beautiful visual storytelling that focuses on life in one room unfolding and giving time to human qualities. The film teaches lessons using simplistic measures and is creative in showing evolution from one angle without becoming too fixated on being abstract or unique. Solid acting and picking relevant points in life should provide relatable moments for a variety of audience members, which may be both a curse and a blessing, depending on the type of viewer you are. Helming all of this is a brilliant cast to deliver realistic lines and balanced performances and establish that familial charm movies like this one thrive upon for their material. Those very qualities are also the limitation of the movie, primarily in the haphazard storytelling that Zemeckis and company took with Here. Jumping between so many periods without solid connections made many tales feel irrelevant and unnecessary. As this compounds, the movie starts to feel like a chore, especially near the sadder parts of the film and begins to make the film boring. Beautiful and realistic as it can be, if you aren't ready to handle such things, Here is going to fall short for many people. Balancing all of this, Zemeckis' artistry deserves praise for originality, but is such an approach worthy of the theater? In my opinion, no. It's a film that can be appreciated in most homes and gives the same message. Thus, my scores for Here are:

Drama: 6.5-7.0 Movie Overall: 6.0.

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.

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.