When Forrest Gump was released in theaters back in 1994, it was an immediate success. It would eventually go on to be the second-highest-grossing film of that year and win six Oscars, including Best Picture. In the years since, the film has enjoyed a pretty strong cultural legacy, and is still a favorite of many. It has also become a defining film for its stars, Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, as well as its director, Robert Zemeckis. While Wright and Hanks worked with Zemeckis individually on other films, all three of them have never worked together since Gump. This brings us to Here, which reunites all three of them, as well as Forrest Gump screenwriter Eric Roth. However, this film is much more ambitious and unique by comparison, as the camera is fixed in one spot, focusing on a single plot of land over many generations.
It is clear that Zemeckis is hoping to replicate at least a fraction of the success he achieved with Forrest Gump, as he’s been on a bit of a losing streak recently. His past several films have flopped at box office, and the reviews have not been particularly kind to many of them either. One can’t help but wonder if he’s hoping to recapture some of the success he reached with Gump by bringing on some of its key players for Here. At the very least, he might be banking on nostalgia to put some butts in seats based on Hanks and Wright teaming up again. However, despite its strong concept and some decent filmmaking, Here doesn’t fully live up to its promise and can’t quite overcome its shallow, often boring plot.
Spanning numerous centuries, Here focuses on one piece of land in America. While many stories come up throughout the film, the main plotline concerns a family during the 20th century. Near the beginning of the film, Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose (Kelly Reilly) move into a house, and we see their family start to grow. Their oldest child, Richard (Tom Hanks) is a gifted artist, and wants to pursue graphic design. He is dating a young woman named Margaret (Robin Wright) and the two begin to fall in love with each other. As the film goes on, we see how each of their lives change over the years, and watch them experience the highs and lows that life has to offer, as well as get glimpses into the past to see the lives of those who lived there before them.
The film is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Richard McGuire, and uses panel-like boxes to transition between the numerous moments in time the film covers. The idea of both the novel and the film is that we are focused on one specific place and are literally “in the moment” for many major life events experienced by the people who inhabited that one little area over hundreds of years. It is a great concept, and one that works pretty well in its source material, but it doesn’t fully translate to the screen. I will say that it does mostly work on a visual level, using the panel-like transitions and mode of storytelling that the graphic novel uses. The stillness of the camera is also used better than I was expecting, as it helps give a sense of authenticity to the film. However, this is undercut by a weak script and some questionable visual effects.
If there is anything that can be said about a Robert Zemeckis film, it is that he will always find a way to use special effects no matter what the film is about. The entire back half of his career is largely defined by this, due to his pursuit of trying to perfect the use of motion capture in film. Aside from that, Zemeckis has always sought to make great strides in VFX, which often is his downfall. This is sadly the case with Here, although it doesn’t use VFX as much as his recent output. In this film, it is mostly limited to de-aging some of the actors, some of the film’s transitions, and the occasional use of CGI. Considering that the film is striving to earnestly portray human life, these things stick out like a sore thumb.
The de-aging is perhaps the worst offender, as it just makes everyone look very smooth in the face, and considering that there are a fair amount of shots where the actors are close to the camera, it is hard to ignore. This is especially an issue with Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, as they are supposed to be as young as 18 in some scenes. The film does reach a point where the de-aging doesn’t seem as egregious, partially helped by them being further back in certain shots. But I just didn’t buy the scenes where they are younger, as it feels like they just put Hanks and Wright in wigs, made their faces look ridiculously smooth and called it a day. To the film’s credit, there is a moment that uses the de-aging to its advantage, as Robin Wright’s Margaret walks towards the camera and stares out before the film jumps ahead multiple years, allowing her face to age into what it looks like now. It’s an effective moment that plays into what the film is ultimately saying about life and the passage of time, and I really wish that there were more intentional moments like that that utilize VFX as opposed to the film just including it because Zemeckis seems to think it looks cool.
As for the script, it tries to adapt the overlapping panels and stories from McGuire’s novel in a way that makes sense, but it often feels jarring and scatterbrained. Most of the film is devoted to the central story involving the Young family, but there are numerous other stories introduced throughout the film. These range from the developments of an Indigenous couple’s relationship to the early Colonial days of the US to an inventor working on a reclining chair, to name a few. These side plots are very hit or miss, as some are executed well, but others feel unneeded. The ones that work are usually the simplest ones, whereas the ones that the film tries to flesh out are a bit misguided.
The main story is pretty clearly defined and straightforward, and has some fun bits of visual storytelling, but there’s really not much depth to it. Considering that the film is literally acting as a window into American life, this poses a huge issue for it. Sure, the characters are dealing with heavy things and going through a wide array of emotions throughout the runtime, but it is all told in such a basic, surface-level way that makes it hard to truly connect with anything that is happening. A couple of moments did hit close to home for me, but I was never really invested in the story or hardly any of the characters. This was especially apparent in the final scene, which is supposed to be the emotional climax of the film. I won’t spoil any details, but this moment landed with a major thud for me and made the film end on a low note.
This isn’t helped by the fact that the characters are so one-dimensional that it is almost impossible to connect with them. Tom Hanks’s Richard is just a bland everyman, and Robin Wright’s Margaret is his wife that wants more than the life they’ve found themselves in. While Margaret’s desire for something else is felt at times, it is mostly limited to wanting to move out of the house that her and Richard live in, which is brought up so many times that it feels repetitive. Richard, on the other hand has almost no defining characteristics other than he likes to paint, and is such a boring presence in the film. Maybe Zemeckis and Roth hoped that Hanks would fill in the gaps of the character, but considering that there is hardly anything to Richard, they’re basically asking Hanks to do all the work. Wright is admittedly pretty good in the film, and at least has something to latch onto with the character of Margaret. However, she is so thinly written that there is only so much she can do. Hanks is actually kind of boring in the role, which came as a big shock to me considering how reliable of a screen presence he is. He gets by for the most part, but this is definitely one of his lesser performances. The two are okay as a pair, but I still had a hard time connecting with them on any substantial level.
I found myself more intrigued by Paul Bettany’s Al and Kelly Reilly’s Rose. Rose is a bit of a thankless role, essentially falling into the 50s housewife archetype, but Reilly adds some interesting shades to the character. She especially impressed me with her work in the back half of the film, and is a far more sympathetic character than Richard or Margaret. Al is the character that stood out to me the most, thanks mostly to Bettany’s performance. Al is a war veteran, an alcoholic, and a short-tempered father to Richard and two other children, and Bettany threads the needle between the film’s tone and actually feeling like a real person. Yes, a lot of his emotions ping at a 10, but there is some truth and pathos that linger under the surface. There is a monologue he gives deep into the film that really hit me hard and features some of the best acting I’ve ever seen from Bettany. His arc is far more interesting than most of the other storylines in the film, even if it isn’t particularly original. I almost wish that the film focused on Al and Rose’s lives a little more, as the moments that do end up touching on more interesting ideas than the rest of the film.
As someone who likes a fair amount of Robert Zemeckis’s films, especially the ones he made in the 80s and 90s, I can’t help but keep hoping that he will make a truly great film again. But considering his recent output, it isn’t all that surprising that Here is a mess. You can at least feel that Zemeckis is trying, mostly on the visual front, but there isn’t much to the film beyond that. For a film that is trying to show life on screen, it feels rather lifeless. If anything, it feels more like another exercise designed to let Zemeckis try out some new visual effects. Anyone hoping that this will be anything like Forrest Gump will be highly disappointed, although the film does have a big Alan Silvestri score and some beats that feel similar to that film. Those like me who might be hoping that this is a return to form for Zemeckis will also be disappointed, as he shows some signs of life, but mostly fumbles the film as a whole. I suppose this film could have been far worse, but it could have easily been a lot better as well. Here might have an interesting core concept, but it can’t fully live up to what it is wanting to accomplish, and feels pretty bland and middling at best.
Comments