2 out of 5 stars
As a big fan of Forrest Gump (who in their right mind isn’t?), I was very excited to see the reunion of director Robert Zemeckis with actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright in their newest film “Here.”
Unfortunately, what was a really interesting concept and storytelling technique ultimately fell flat, and I was deprived of that Forrest Gump magic I was so desperately craving.
“Here” is adapted from a 2014 graphic novel by the same name. The graphic novel, published by illustrator Richard McGuire, shows the same location on Earth at different points in time through the use of overlapping panels.
The film, much like its inspiration, shows the events taking place at one specific location on Earth, from the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs to the development of the land, to the building of a house and the lives of the various families that have lived in it. It is done through a specific and unique technique: the camera never moves.
When I saw the trailer for “Here,” I was very excited to see this movie. What can I say? I love a shtick. As a filmmaking major, I was intrigued at the challenges presented by keeping the camera entirely stationary, but I also felt there was an opportunity for the lack of camera movement to ground the film in reality and let the storytelling and acting shine.
Unfortunately, it was not executed well. Between the stationary camera, the slow pace and the lack of conflict, the movie dragged heavily. I really wanted something to tie the various storylines together or some throughline of plot development, but as the film jumps between storylines, each scene felt unrelated to the last.
The only storyline that had some sort of narrative was that of couple Richard (Tom Hanks) and Margaret (Robin Wright). The film follows Richard’s childhood growing up in the home, Margaret moving in after she gets pregnant and the two raising their daughter under the same roof as Richard’s parents and siblings.
While this storyline does present some conflict, it was repetitive, and there didn’t seem to be any assertion that the film was trying to make. Margaret desperately wants to move out of the house for the majority of the film, but Richard insists they wait until the economy improves and they have enough money, which never happens.
This storyline frustrated me as it seemed to be Margaret’s only character trait, and again was really the only conflict in the film. In the other storylines, we really only get snapshots of moments in these people’s lives.
This film proved to me why filmmakers move the camera in the first place. Every art form has its unique traits that support different stories, and film’s greatest strength is being able to purposefully tailor what the audience sees. If you’re going to take away that strength, you might as well tell the story through a different medium.
The whole time I was watching the movie, I kept thinking that it would have been a great play. The concept of telling a story from one room would have functioned very well on stage. However, keeping the camera in the same location meant the audience couldn’t choose where to look, while that’s easier to do in a play.
The performances were fine. They weren’t anything revolutionary for Hanks or Wright, but, as talented actors, I thought they did a decent job with the script they were given. I felt the show was actually stolen by two other actors, neither of which are big names.
One of the other storylines followed the inventor of the La-Z-Boy chair (David Fynn) and his wife (Ophelia Lovibond) through their time living in the house in the ‘20s and ‘30s. These scenes were my favorite, and honestly, the saving grace of the film. They were hilarious, the performances were well executed, and, as far as production design goes, this was my favorite era for how the house was decorated.
If you were wanting to see “Here” in the theatres, probably skip it. It’s a film worth watching just for its uniqueness, but I would wait until it goes to streaming platforms.
Photo courtesy of Variety.