User reviews

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 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.

Man, whatever happened to Robert Zemeckis. In the past, Zemeckis created classic works like "Forrest Gump, Back to the Future Trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Polar Express" and many other great works I have grown up with. However after The Walk, his works have been disappointing and disappointing to say the least. This movie has a really ambitious and intriguing concept, but unfortunately, despite some solid and interesting moments, Zemeckis fails to experiment with the concept properly and ends up being tedious and underwhelming.

The concept of the camera staying in one place and the narrative feels ambitious and creative. With themes that are interesting and could be innovative on exploration, but Zemeckis' direction and the lack of emotional depth of the movie ruins what could have been a good movie. Filled with bloated plot lines, unbalanced structure, and characters that aren't fully developed, the emotional weight and engagement becomes more of a snooze fest. Almost as if Zemeckis saw The Tree of Life but kind of missed understood what made The Tree of Life amazing and made this more mediocre and dull. Provided with some rough dialogue and pacing issues.

The production designs and the camerawork is really good, alongside with the uses of the CGI of the face swap being pretty solid with the colors and movements. All of the performances are good as it's nice to see Tom Hanks and Robin Wright together again as they have good chemistry and scenes together. But it didn't work because of the sloppy and ham-fisted approach that really fails to do justice.

Robert Zemeckis will always still be one of my favorite directors. I grew up during my childhood, but unfortunately, his prime years are long, long behind.

'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.

It's artistic, beautiful, creative, amazingly edited and a high point in my theatre attendance this year. The acting, the writing, directing, etc was all good. For heavier life subjects I was amazed it was over so fast, only to look at my watch and be surprised how late it was. The message of this movie to pursue your dreams while you cannot be overstated. Youth is so precious but gone so quickly, so cherish every moment you have with your parents and your kids before the moments are gone, because in the end your relationships are worth more than money you may have lost in pursuit of them. As we move into the holiday season, this movie punctuates how important our flawed family members are.

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.

Greetings again from the darkness. It's possible I'm in the minority on this one, but it's inconceivable to think I'm all alone with my impression of a movie being hyped as a reunion of the FORREST GUMP director, writer, stars, and crew. I found this to be one of the most irritating and tiresome movies to watch that I've seen in a while. A long while. Of course, I'm sure it's possible to create a decent movie with no plot and little story, and no character of interest ... but this ain't it.

With no intention of poisoning the water for prospective viewers, this will simply recap the process. The premise is planting a camera in one spot and then progressing through history. Beginning with dinosaurs running amok, the devastating flood, Mother Nature reclaiming the land, Native Americans living their lives, Benjamin Franklin's illegitimate son building a huge home, and finally our specific home being constructed in a newly established neighborhood. We then see the families who occupy the house over the years. When I say the camera stays in one spot, that's exactly what I mean. It's as if it never moves as dinosaurs romp and Franklin's house is built and finally the bay window in this home provides a static view of the living room.

Very little excitement occurs in this living room. Mostly it's just the same family stuff you probably experience: love, marriage, birth, death, illness, arguments, heartbreak. Though there are other inhabitants, the house is lived in through most of the years by the Young family, beginning with just-back-from-war Army vet Al Young (Paul Bettany) and his wife Rose (Kelly Riley). One of their kids is aspiring artist Richard (played as a teen, an adult, and a senior by Oscar winner Tom Hanks). He marries his high school sweetheart Margaret (Robin Wright), who hopes to be an attorney. Anyway, life stuff happens ... and continues to happen, as superimposed frames are used as we bound from time period to other time period, both forwards and backwards.

2024 is the 40th anniversary of the Oscar winning film, FORREST GUMP. The 'Gump' reunion for this film includes writer-director Robert Zemekis, co-writer Eric Roth, lead actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, Cinematographer Don Burgess, Composer Alan Silvestri, Sound Designer Randy Thom, and Costume Designer Joanna Johnston. Adapted from Richard McGuire's 2014 graphic novel, the film shows little resemblance to the classic film this team all previously worked on (netting 6 Oscars and 13 nominations).

For all the grief Martin Scorsese took for utilizing the de-aging process in THE IRISHMAN (2019), this one takes it to a whole new level, with Hanks and Wright as both teenagers and elderly folks. Most of this reminds me of Mr. Potter's line in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, "sentimental hogwash". Only we should add generic dialogue and bland characters. The exception to the latter is the intimate relationship between David Flynn and Ophelia Lovibond, as his character's inspired engineering leads to romantic moments for the couple. To put it bluntly, there is simply no story here. Are we to care about this plot of land? The house? The inhabitants? Or is this just a slow reminder that life moves on ... so get busy livin' or get busy dyin' (yes, a SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION quote helps me recover from a disappointing movie experience).

Opens in theaters on November 1, 2024.

The movie HERE is amazing, and you'll love it. We did. It's absolutely refreshing in both conceptual cinematography and storytelling-brilliant and unlike anything you've seen before. This innovative film shows the same corner of the world across different ages and lives, jumping seamlessly through "windows" of time to enhance the narrative. It's such a simple concept, executed beautifully. Take the time to see this movie; you'll leave the cinema feeling refreshed and moved. It's been a long time since I've seen cinematography so seamlessly integrated to tell a story. If you're a movie buff, you don't wanna miss this one.

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.

This is an artistic experiment of the likes only a Hollywood director like Zemeckis can bring. He has always had a talent for integrating the new and old, with his special effects classics, pioneering work in CGI and mocap, and so on. 'Here' is easily his most out there, avant-garde film that you can see why Zemeckis was so passionate about the film with its use of one frozen space during the entire running time. First let me praise how surreal it is to see such a seamless young CGI Tom Hanks, as well, Paul Bettany, who ends up the star of this movie which is sad because we can only see him from afar.

The visual tapestry is at times brilliant in this expression of holographic, filmed theater, often feeling like a museum exhibit in AI. You will only see a cinematic experiment like this if a directors has either too much money, or no money. The problem is it is terrible. They will sometimes find these creative ways to break the rule, such as dragging a mirror in front the camera to show the other side of the room. But if the audience is focusing on the 'how' during a movie, it has failed.

They say art thrives best with limitation, and I am left thinking they could have done so much more with the staging and drama--think, would this play on stage? And who would even attend such a boring play? The worst is when we get to the lectures. Everyone is sick of Hollywood lecturing us and they can't help but bring in their messages. There are even scenes with the characters in face-masks keying in you know what, and it is just groan worthy. That is far and away not the iconic moment defining-this-era that the film thinks it is, or if it were, not for the reasons it thinks. Such moments weighs the film's good intentions into total dreck, combining artificial moralizing with artificial actors.

The film is marketed by how it re-teams the Forest Gump cast and crew. But I never liked Eric Roth as a screenwriter, in both 'Here' and 'Benjamin Button' the writing is putting too much importance on how little we end up with, like squeezing blood out a stone. Roth is always a Hallmark card writer at the end of the day, any time he doesn't have a story and must rely on fortune cookie themes and humanist moments, the film fails badly. There are writers who are able to capture what he always fails at doing--making regular life magic--such as Raymond Carver. One such example, the scene with the blue ribbon is way overplayed, with a character even saying, what an important memory for us, we will remember this some day. Inevitably, they do. Any dramatist knows this moment should not have called attention to itself to create a bigger breakthrough moment when it plays in later.

The movie plays like a first draft before it got all the notes it needed ripping it apart. Isn't that what Hollywood is supposed to do, ruthlessly advocating for the audience experience? Maybe studios are too afraid to give Ridley Scott or Robert Zemeckis notes at their age. Overall, the film is a failed experiment, nothing more, nothing less. Had they done it right, the viewer would leave the film not even remembering that it was one frozen space the whole way, instead, the film insists that is all you care about.

I was very much looking forward to this movie and was not disappointed. It is a much needed breath of refreshment in an industry that hit a solid brick wall about 15 years ago. Maybe more.

Zemeckis and Co. Did a phenomenal job of exploring the existential and philosophical intricacies of reflection and how time goes by in the blink of an eye. Much like with Forrest Gump (and to an extent, the BTTF franchise), past time periods are delightfully represented, but this time, they feel so much more genuine. The story, while not conventionally entertaining as mentioned by other reviewers, is not *meant* to be entertaining. It's a slice of life. It's real. And from an artistic standpoint, therein lies the charm of the film. It's a shame how many of these pseudo-intellectual bores with the depth of a contact lens and the insight of a jar of marmalade have some how been granted any power or say within the various "academies" and "institutions" of film. Grown adults who can't sit still or maintain focus for 2 hours on a movie simply because they perceive a lack of variety.

This is why the Oscar picks of late have been generic, loathsome, paint by number cash grabs.

Well if anyone wants my pick for next year's Oscar winner, it's this.

Thank you, Robert Zemeckis and everyone involved for revitalizing the film industry and setting it back on the right track. I only wish the masses had the capacity to appreciate it as much as I did.

Not to say it's a bad film. One thing in its favour is that it has the gaul to follow through. There are several things not in its favour: Robin Wright's forced laughter, shallow stories, hammy segues, no real conclusions to the intertwined stories. However the most concerning is the overuse of CGI to the point that it is almost an AI movie. The opening sequence, the sharp focus of characters up close to the "camera", the artificial fire in the fireplace, how the far wall will disappear so we can see characters waving goodbye to each other. If AI feature length films are in our immediate future, how long until our lives resemble Black Mirror's '15,000,000 Credits'?

This would work so well as a stage play told in linear order. The bones are there: the set pieces, the single camera view, the soliloquies. After half an hour I was glad I seen the movies for free. By the end I'd cried three times and laughed twice. However, you would best be waiting to see this without extra charge on a streaming service. Then again, I have the same view about Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, so...

First of all, I loved Forest Gump and Castaway. That said, Robert Zemeckis has not made a decent film in over 20 years. He had been on such a roll before that. His foray into stop action films appeared to be the beginning of the end.

I watched "Here" at AFI and it was painful to sit through. There was no story, it was almost like watching an expensive home movie with technology thrown in to try and cover for the lack of plot. I went in rooting for this film to be good but left incredibly disappointed. Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, and Paul Bettany were okay, but just okay, given that they had very little to work with. When a prominent director's career winds down, there's something very sad about their denial or lack of acceptance in realizing it might be time to pass the baton; Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis and Clint Eastwood's Cry Macho also come to mind.

"Here" is a complete miss that likely will not resonate with a wide audience.

It's an epic historical drama of a single geographic spot, probably in New Jersey, from prehistoric times to the present. It quickly deals with the dinosaurs and the Ice Age, and then in a jumbled fashion, addresses the pre-European era with an Indigenous couple (Joel Oulette and Ddannie McCallum), colonial times with William Franklin's (Daniel Betts) new home, then in the living room of the house built in 1900 across the street from the colonial house. We meet the various families who lived in the house, including John (Gwilym Lee) and Mrs. Harter (Michelle Dockery), an aspiring airplane pilot until 1918. Later, we meet Lee (David Fynn) and Stella Beekman (Ophelia Lovibond), the fictional inventor of a reclining chair, who lived there until the 1940s. After the war, the story's primary subjects are Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose Young (Kelly Reilly), their son, Richard (Tom Hanks), and Tom's girlfriend and later wife, Margaret (Robin Wright). Later, the African American Harris family, Devon (Nicholas Pinnock) and Helen (Nikki Amuka-Bird) live in the house.

Robert Zemeckis utilizes a single camera position that looks through the living room to the outside picture window once the house is built. We see joy, sorrow, disappointment, conflict, comfort, nostalgia, and pathos in the various lives lived in that space. Sometimes, multiple eras are on the screen at the same time in framed screen segments.

Contrary to some critics, I thought Robert Zemeckis's approach worked reasonably well for a holiday movie. There is no climax, but "Here" sympathetically observes lives unfolding. Not everything in the film was great. The prehistoric stuff felt pasted on. The Indigenous segments needed more significant development or omission. The movie could have started with the house being built in 1900. I would have liked to know more about the Harris family. But this was vintage Tom Hanks as everyman, and Robin Wright was a good match.

When I saw Robert was releasing another film. I got worried as his latest films have not been great. Then I saw he had teamed up with his people from Forrest Gump and I got excited. The trailer dropped and I got even more excited. Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, all have returned to their roots. This film is funny, sad, dramatic, magical. I am so glad that this film worked. It's impressive to see de-aging technology come so far. You may be wondering why I rate it an 8/10. That's because of the story. This film is more like Vignettes and not full fledge story. Your main character is the land since the camera doesn't change. I was expecting a more thought out story but the Vignette style did work really well.

Please don't pay to see this movie. Wait until it is available for free, which probably won't be long time comin'.

The one, single POV holds your interest for about ten minutes before you find yourself yearning for a different angle, a zoom shot, &/or a close-up or two.

I found some interest in the scene within a scene and time-jumping approach, but it becomes tiresome rather quickly. Dipping into four five generations at different points in time, as time progressed, was dizzying.

The most unnerving aspect was the de-aging of Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. This required a suspension of disbelief that went on far too long, for it to be believable.

I honestly believe this will be a Tom Hanks flop.

Everyone moves into an apartment or house and at some point wonders who lived there before them, and what happened on the very spot they are standing - that is what this film is about. From the vantage of one camera angle we witness history through the eyes of different people in different eras - layers of life and death, happiness and sadness, joy and pain in one spot.

Time flows quickly over millions of years in the first seconds of the film, but slows with the introduction of a pre-contact Native American couple. The first colonial building appears a few hundred feet away in the 1760s, and is based on William Franklin's Proprietary House (Governor's mansion) in New Jersey. There are flashes of other eras that take place in front of this house over time - the capitulation of the British in 1783 - a fireworks display in the 1840s, a picnic in the 1890s... But when a house is built across the street in 1900, the camera becomes imbedded in its living room.

The bulk of the film then jots back and forth over the next 120 years. Smaller stories about a pioneering aviator and his suffragette wife who live in the house from c. 1900 to 1920; a Bohemian couple that occupy the home in the late 1930s-early 1940s who invent the La-Z-Boy (which is complete fiction as the chair was invented in 1929 in Michigan); and an affluent black family who briefly live in the house from c. 2016 to 2023. We never see who lives in the house in the 1920s-early 30s.

The majority of the film focusses on three generations of one family who lived in the house from c. 1946 to 2016. They are the most relatable of all the storylines, but also the least interesting. Although it may have lacked a riveting story arc, I never found the film dull due in part to the gimmick of anti-aging AI that make Tom Hanks and Robin Wright age from an almost believable 17 to 77 years of age.

It wasn't a perfect film, some of the green screen acting came across a bit stilted. The costuming was generally excellent, although the mid-thigh mini skirt wedding dress was too early for 1964, shutters on the 1760s house were incorrect, and there were several questionable set decorating issues, from a 'coffee table' in the 1910s to an overstuffed sectional sofa in the 1960s...

Despite these issues - it's a great experiment in the time travel genre, typical of a Robert Zemeckis film.

I saw the negative reviews and didn't want to see this film. But I went and saw it with my family and was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't one of the best films of 2024 like The Wild Robot. But this film had me engaged from start to the finish when I expected to become bored when I heard the concept for the film. The actors did a nice job. Probably my biggest complaint is that a few stories felt rather hollow and incomplete compare to others. I wish there was more of a sense of equality between the stories of the inhabitants of the area over the different eras. And perhaps it would have been nice if there was something more to connect them all than just the location. Perhaps there was more which I missed because there are a lot of details in this film.

The 1950s to early 2000s really got the bulk of the story attention. The family around the last 10 years and the one around the 20s and 30s felt especially 1 dimensional to me. I did like early 1900s family with the flight interest as well as the clips from before the home was built. The editing and transitions were very enjoyable and made up for the lack of camera angles and variety. I feel like the visuals were top notch. Then when the camera finally moved near the end there was something unexpected and magical about it.

Overall I found it solid and worth a watch because it's very different and interesting film. The story isn't perfect. But I had a hard time faulting the execution from a direction and editing standpoint.

Oh dear. What a disaster. I guess the idea must have sounded good over some nice canapes in the bar at the Peninsular Hotel.

But then we are asked to watch it. If you want to see what it looks like then grab a stick, tape a camera or your phone to the top and leave it running. Yup that's it.

Then we have Tom. A once loved actor who when he played Colonel Tom in Elvis revealed who has congealed into. Every dog has his day. Then a time comes when you need to hang up your boots. But when you do be sure to gracefully say thank you and then be quiet.

What is not a good idea is to hurt the wonderful people who helped you, watched you, loved you by insulting and attacking them. Tom just because our politics don't align why must you be so cruel? Did I ever do anything but love your films? Think your once great talent added something to every role you took?

It's over now.

That is what this movie is really about. Can you sit for 100 minutes to watch it happen on screen? Can you stay... here? Maybe not, especially if you have trouble sitting for even 10 minutes to watch life unfold off-screen.

You will love this movie if you know what you're getting into. Just watch the trailer. It indicates that the movie will require some patience, but the payoff is worth it. It's also by the guy who made Contact (1997) and Cast Away (2000), so you can be confident that this is a director who knows what he's doing. He wants to uplift you!

I admit, there was a point in the movie where I asked "Where is this heading?" and fidgeted in my seat. But, when I let go and trusted in the unfolding, my eyes stayed wet.

After letting go and relaxing into the experience, I could see the best parts of my mother in the main character played by Robin Wright. This was a beautiful treat! Plus this movie was released on her birthday! After exiting the theater, I sent her a copy of the graphic novel that inspired this movie.

Finally, a movie that made me ache with nostalgia and uplifted my soul. It also reminded me to love and respect my parents despite their foibles. Wright is my favorite supporting actress in this since Patricia Arquette in Boyhood (2014).

Thank you cast and crew!

Just finished watching Here (2024), the newest movie from Robert Zemeckis, and it was pretty decent and a big step up from the Witches (2020) and Pinocchio (2022).

Positives for Here (2024): The movie's gimmick of the camera sitting in one spot and focusing on just one setting is a good and interesting way to tell the story. There are some great and unique transition sequences where the movie will take you to different timelines in this one setting. The performances from Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly are all very good. And finally, this movie goes back to having that good-natured atmosphere present to Robert Zemeckis' previous movies.

Negatives for Here (2024): While I did like the movie's gimmick, it is also the movie's biggest weakness. This is one of those movies that feels like it is all style with very little substance.

Overall, Here (2024) is a good comeback for Robert Zemeckis after two massive duds and while it isn't one of his best movies, I would still recommend this movie just fort the unique experience it gave me.

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.

6.5/10 If Here had focused solely on the story of Tom Hanks and Robin Wright's characters, Richard and Margaret, it would have been a more cohesive experience and better film, instead, the film introduces multiple other stories taking place in the same house, but they really lack satisfying conclusions and also with no hearts put into it to those other story, then why do we have to care about they're story, these subplots hint at intriguing possibilities, yet they don't receive the depth or heart they deserve, some story got their parts longer some doesn't, at the same time they're story are still played decently that's why i'm still fine with it at times, but still they're story ends with no important conclusion, only Richard and Margaret's story is fully realized, and the focus on their journey is fantastic, Paul Bettany's performance is incredible, and the entire cast delivers excellently, the decision to tell the story from a single, unique perspective is a stroke of creative genius by Robert Zemeckis, and i found it surprisingly effective, the editing is also superb and really enhances the film's flow, again i just hope Here was focus on one story only, and the other could be done in the beginning and the rest was the important one, genius in a way that Robert Zemeckis find this great idea of taking it in a particular perspective and it works, those technical things and main story of the film was great, but what really flawed is how they put some other story in it while those story still play decently in the film, definitely one of the most creative and interesting flawed films of the year in my opinion.