Here Review: Visually Striking, Meaningless Melodrama

Here Review: Visually Striking, Meaningless Melodrama

As a gamer with over three decades of movie-watching experience under my belt, I find myself torn between admiration for the technical prowess and sheer audacity of Robert Zemeckis and disappointment at the final product that is “Here.” This film, like a box of chocolates indeed, hides its true flavor until you take a bite.


In a unique twist, Robert Zemeckis, like an unexpected box of chocolates, brings forth a dramatic film wrapped in potential. With Zemeckis at the helm, a screenplay penned by Eric Roth, and a star-studded cast featuring Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, this movie boasts the same creative team as the 1994 classic Forrest Gump. There’s a sense of poetry in the fact that thirty years after Zemeckis crafted one of my all-time favorite films, he has reunited his talented crew to create another film that traverses through decades.

Regrettably, I found myself watching a mediocre film that failed to deliver on its promising premise. Although it’s challenging to make comparisons, having the same creative team behind this project invites inevitable comparisons to movies like Forrest Gump. However, even without mentioning that classic, this movie leaves much to be desired. The unique aspect of the camera being stationary throughout the runtime is intriguing, but unfortunately, it doesn’t quite hit the mark.

This filmmaking achievement is so incredible that it makes viewers feel like they’re unobtrusive observers. It’s inspired by Richard McGuire’s graphic novel, and in numerous instances, Zemeckis skillfully blends the visuals to resemble comic book panels straight from the source material. The narrative invites us to reassess our connection with our surroundings. As you ponder this review, you’re reminded that you’re in a location steeped in millennia of history. This setting provokes thoughts about what it might have been like a century ago or what it could become a century from now.

Robert Zemeckis’s professional journey is marked by bold leaps. I owe him a debt of gratitude for creating my all-time favorite film, Back to the Future. Throughout his career, he’s been innovative in visual effects, employing motion capture technology in films such as The Polar Express and Welcome to Marwen, and seamlessly blending hand-drawn animation with live-action scenes in movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

This movie isn’t his top performance. It employs advanced AI technology for face swapping and real-time de-aging of actors, a recent development in cinema. Although the de-aging effects are comparable to others, they can at times be quite noticeable. There’s a particular scene where I watched Hanks and Wright throughout, convinced they were no older than their 30s. However, when the dialogue suggested they were high school students, my ability to suspend disbelief was shattered.

Additionally, while keeping the camera stationary throughout the movie creates an intriguing idea, it tends to keep the characters at a distance. This can make the experience resemble watching a play from afar, where the intensity of the emotions isn’t as palpable as in movies. However, it’s important to note that not all stage plays fail to evoke strong feelings. The problem with Here goes beyond this issue. Each scene seems to wrap up too promptly. Every moment feels transient, lacking the depth needed to make a lasting impression.

Opting for a narrative structure that traverses multiple centuries may prove more confusing than enriching. At times, we find ourselves on the brink of becoming engrossed in the tensions among Richard, Margaret, and Richard’s father, Al (Paul Bettany). However, just as our interest peaks, the film abruptly shifts to a different era, offering unrelated scenes such as the invention of a La-Z-Boy chair or a love story between two Native Americans.

This movie is jam-packed with subplots that never develop or contribute anything meaningful. The characters are shown frequently, but we rarely form a connection with them. It would be different if each scene elicited laughter, tears, or at least piqued our interest in their hardships. However, if you were to watch your neighbors through a window for about 30 seconds, and then not see them again for several years, only to repeat this process, you would find it uninteresting. This is because watching them briefly doesn’t allow you to truly know or connect with them as people; you’re merely getting fleeting glimpses of them.

This movie seems lacking in substance and impact. The plot is underdeveloped, with insufficient conflict to hold the film together. At times, the acting feels overly scripted. The concept of exploring life in a single location is intriguing, but it fails to capture the audience’s emotions. There are sporadic humorous moments, yet they are not frequent enough to leave a lasting impression. Despite the potential for deep character development, you find yourself disconnected from the characters. The narrative lacks direction, appearing more like a series of unrelated scenes rather than a cohesive story. Scenes could have been extended to provide more depth, and the main couple doesn’t stand out from other pairs in similar films. They lack individuality, leaving us without a clear understanding of their personalities beyond a single characteristic.

Although the film’s artistic direction by Alan Silvestri and the soundtrack are impressive, and it neither becomes dull nor prolonged, this film is unfortunately underwhelming with an abundance of skill behind the scenes but little depth below the surface.

SCORE: 5/10

According to the review guidelines on ComingSoon, a score of 5 means “Average” or “Mediocre.” In this case, the film’s positive aspects are balanced by its flaws, resulting in an overall neutral assessment.

Read More

Sorry. No data so far.

2024-11-05 01:40