“Here” Movie Review: A Century of Love and Loss in One House

"Here" Movie Review: A Century Under One Roof – Ambitious, but Does it Deliver?

Robert Zemeckis, famed for "Forrest Gump" and "Back to the Future," teams up with Tom Hanks and Robin Wright for "Here." This film is ambitious and conceptually interesting. It has sparked many *spirited* debates. Picture a century unfolding within a single room. It resembles a stage play. "Here" positions its camera in one spot and tells the story through lives that enter one house. Let's break this down.

The Story Unfolds: Love, Loss, and the Same Old House

"Here" disregards the typical three-act structure. Forget the rules; it embraces vignettes. We get snippets, flitting back and forth quickly. The key concept? Multiple families living under one roof over a century. It promises to take us "from the beginning of time to the present day." Movie terms mean from the post-Ice Age to 2024. Think of it like "Boyhood," but with a house aging instead of a kid. Or not aging, since houses are inanimate.

At first, we see just land. Then post-Ice Age, greenery flourishes (nature, splendid). Fast forward, and the Lenni-Lenape people populate the area. We glimpse a Lenni-Lenape couple's life—courtship, family, and heartbreaking loss. Then we zoom to 1907. Gwilym Lee John and Pauline Harter (portrayed by Gwilym Lee and Michelle Dockery) build their home. They are first homeowners, giving us that fresh-house scent.

Next up are the Beekmans from the 1940s, Leo and Stella (David Fynn and Ophelia Lovibond). Leo invents things, while Stella is a pin-up model. Unique? For sure. Leo’s big invention? Reclining chairs. Yes, the "Relaxy Boy," which evolves into a cooler name "La-Z-Boy." If you've enjoyed a La-Z-Boy, you have a tiny connection to this movie. It's a history lesson about furniture.

Post-war, we reach the main act. Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose Young (Kelly Reilly) share the spotlight with their son, Richard (Tom Hanks). Richard grows up, marries Margaret, and they have a daughter, Vanessa. This family serves as the emotional core, or they attempt to be. Richard and Margaret's daughter Vanessa (Zsa Zsa Zemeckis) mysteriously vanishes around age 16. Kids disappearing—classic suburban angst.

Next, we meet the Harrises, the film's only Black family. Here is where it gets troubling. Their storyline revolves around a teenage son receiving "the talk" about police violence. Meanwhile, the housekeeper contracts COVID. Critics have been vocal about this narrative being... simplistic. It's as if the film knew diversity mattered and then presented it in a stereotypical manner. That hurts.

Finally, we revisit Richard and Margaret in 2024. An older Richard returns with Margaret, now suffering from dementia, to their empty house. Cue emotional scenes, memories, and the inevitable truth that time flows on. Sometimes it returns to the starting point: an empty house.

Themes: Time, Memory, and a Hummingbird Named Continuity

"Here" delves into more than houses and families; it explores broader themes. Think about history, memory, and time's relentless march. Deep stuff, right? The film pushes you to reflect on how spaces absorb life echoes within their walls. The house acts as a sponge for human experience, telling stories across generations.

The non-linear storytelling is intentional. It reflects how memory functions—fragmented and associative. The film seeks to depict history not as linear but as a messy tapestry of moments overlapping. Ambitious? Without a doubt! Successfully executed? Opinions vary.

And then there’s the hummingbird. Ah, rich symbolism! In the closing scenes, a hummingbird flits by outside the house. Continuity! Connections endure! Nature represents life's circle, buzzing around to affirm the message. It all feels... symbolic. Maybe too symbolic for some viewers.

Characters: Hanks, Wright, Bettany, and... AI?

The cast showcases Hollywood stars: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly, and Michelle Dockery. This group has impressive acting skills. Hanks and Wright create "Forrest Gump" nostalgia. It sells well. Do they depend on past success?

Characters show different eras and life slices. But due to the vignette format—and possibly some *subpar* writing—many seem like historical placeholders rather than real individuals. We see glimpses and snapshots, but nothing too deep.

Then there's the notable use of AI: digital de-aging. Instead of casting different actors for character ages, Zemeckis opted for technology. Hanks and Wright undergo digital rejuvenation or age adjustment when needed. Metaphysic, a VFX company expert in real-time face swapping, provided the tech. Generative AI allows mesmerizing manipulation but begs a question: does it serve the story or merely serve as a gimmick?

Lisa Kudrow publicly criticized it. She deemed AI use "an endorsement for AI," raising ethical concerns about actors' careers and digital manipulation risks. Tom Hanks viewed this technology as something allowing him to act even after his death. Imagine a world of eternally youthful stars brought back by CGI. Seems like a plot from Black Mirror, right?

Production: Fixed Camera, AI Faces, and Pinewood Magic

Robert Zemeckis directed this film with Eric Roth co-writing – another "Forrest Gump" connection! They aim to recreate past success yet "Here" stands apart.

Filming occurred largely at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire and London. Pinewood is famous for producing numerous iconic films. "Here" was shot in 33 days—a testament to efficiency when manipulating groundbreaking tech.

The fixed camera shot forms the movie's signature visual aspect. The camera remains stationary, gazing through a living room window without movement or angle changes. We almost become ghosts peering into this space through time. This static view reinforces the house as a constant—silent observer of human drama. It's daring yet raises questions about its suitability for feature-length storytelling.

Cinematographer Burgess chose the Red Raptor camera with Panavision 35mm lenses. A blend of old-school optics with cutting-edge tech creates a visual paradox. LED walls served for backgrounds and effects. Importantly, AI played a role in real-time de-aging and face swapping—creating exciting effects called "melty." Melty VFX? Fascinating but intriguing!

The screen often presents multiple panes showcasing events from various eras simultaneously—like visual time-layering that adds complexity to this already dense film. Innovative? Certainly! Whether it is *effectively* innovative remains questionable.

Reception: Rotten Tomatoes and Disappointment

Critics have not celebrated "Here." With a 37% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an average of 2.9 stars? That stings. The "Forrest Gump" reunion tactic—Hanks, Wright, Zemeckis—flopped or did not garner anticipated acclaim.

The stage-play format confined to one room emerges as both original yet poorly executed. The concept shines; execution falters greatly. Criticized for heavy-handed dialogue and simplistic directing, it's deemed overly broad in acting style. Calling it "one of the most disappointing movies of the year" feels harsh yet fitting.

Like ambition outweighed artistry.

Why did reviews turn negative? Some cite the slow pacing and thought-provoking nature of the film. It's alienating to viewers who expect fast plots and instant gratification. Are we conditioned for quick satisfaction? Or is the story just not compelling enough, regardless of speed?

Another common critique states that "Technique and story don’t quite mesh." The innovative visuals impress but fail to deliver a strong narrative. They feel like techniques searching for a purpose. The film aims for universality but ends up generic. A tough spot for any movie.

Glimmers of Positivity? Ambition and Potential

Despite criticism, some positive feedback exists. The concept – fixed camera and multi-generational narrative – is seen as "ambitious and creative." Themes, though clumsily presented, are "interesting and potentially innovative." It shows "good intentions, questionable execution."

Some viewers enjoy the pace, noting its focus on "small, quiet moments" over dramatic events. It’s a different approach. Whether it’s a *successful* one remains up for debate.

One reviewer gave a 3.5-star rating. They acknowledged the "hard to follow" timeline and "slow at times" pacing, but argued it was "deliberate." Deliberately slow? Intriguing. Is it meaningful or just slow?

Box office performance reflects film reception. The failure of "Here" serves as a lens on current cinema. Again, audiences may not align with this film's style. Or simply put, maybe viewers just weren’t interested.

"Forrest Gump" and Stage Plays: Echoes and Comparisons

Comparisons to "Forrest Gump" are inevitable due to the Hanks-Wright-Zemeckis reunion. But "Here" is *not* "Forrest Gump 2.0." They share social, cultural, and economic shifts but little else. No shared characters, no connected plots. Just star power and director.

The stage play comparison works better. "Here" occurs entirely in one room, resembling a stage play in structure. A confined space, heavy on dialogue and character focus. This approach may appeal to some but poses cinematic challenges. Keeping visual interest for two hours is hard.

Specific Plot Points: Houses, Families, and Lazy Boys

The house feels like a character. "The whole film takes place in just one room." The camera? Fixed and unmovable. "It will not change angles or zoom in." A static gaze, inviting us to see the extraordinary within the ordinary. In an ordinary house, can extraordinary things happen?

The story of Richard and Margaret develops most. Their relationship spans decades, from young romance to elderly companionship, with dementia complicating matters. Their daughter Vanessa's mysterious disappearance adds unresolved drama. "Vanessa disappears around age 16 and never returns." Quite unresolved.

The Harris family's depiction raises concern, criticized widely for stereotypes. "The Harrises are the only Black family, portrayed through parents discussing police violence and COVID." It reads less like a nuanced family portrayal and more like a social checklist. And not positively.

The segment on the Lenni-Lenape people offers historical context, showing the land's history beyond the house. The Lazy Boy chair origin story serves as a quirky interlude in time. "In the 1940s, Lee Beekman invents the Lazy Boy while fooling around with Stella." These moments try to inject lightness into heavy themes.

Then there's the ending. "In the 2024 film Here, Richard and Margaret enter an empty house, and Margaret says 'I love it here'." A line heavy with bittersweet nostalgia. The camera pulls back, revealing the house's larger context. "The film ends with a shot from the roof of William Franklin's mansion." A change of perspective after being in one room for around 90 minutes?

AI: Blessing or Curse? The De-aging Debate

AI de-aging is central to "Here." "It uses a fixed camera shot while implementing de-aging technology." It’s not merely a visual effect; it helps tell the story across significant time spans. But does this enhance storytelling or act as a distracting gimmick?

Other films use de-aging too. "Indiana Jones" employed machine-learning tech for Harrison Ford. "The Mandalorian" revived a young Luke Skywalker as well. AI de-aging is becoming common and more refined. "Here" takes it further, using it throughout.

Lisa Kudrow’s ethical questions hold weight. Are we seeing the future of acting? Will AI replace human performers? Will actors control their digital likenesses? Tom Hanks muses on acting after death is both intriguing and daunting. The technology implications are significant, with "Here" at the cinematic forefront.

Meaning and Ending: Fleeting Moments, Lasting Connections

Ultimately, "Here" aspires to deliver a message about life's interconnectedness, love's endurance, and time's cyclical way. "It captures the bittersweet threads connecting people across countless experiences." The film invites us to recognize beauty in ordinary moments, mixing joy and grief into universal facets of life.

"The meaning of Here suggests life and love are lovely, despite their fleeting nature." A simple yet sentimental message. Whether the film earns this sentimentality is debatable. Margaret’s line, "I love it here," aims for poignant impact and closure. But does it emotionally resonate? Or does it feel unearned?

Final Thoughts: Is "Here" Worth Watching?

"Here" presents intriguing concepts along with ambitious techniques. It's visually innovative, that's clear. But does that yield a compelling movie experience? Critics seem to lean towards "no." Execution falters, the story underdeveloped, and emotional resonance feels lacking.

If you’re intrigued by cinematic experimentation or AI filmmaking possibilities, "Here" may interest you. But if you seek an engaging narrative and emotionally relatable characters, you might look elsewhere. "Here" is certainly *different* but whether different translates to *good* is uncertain. It may remind us of noble failures in cinematic innovation over time.

Rating: PG-13 (for thematic material, some suggestive content, brief strong language, and smoking). Even profound films face ratings, it seems.