Director Robert Zemeckis trips over his worst impulses in Here

Director Robert Zemeckis trips over his worst impulses in Here

As a film critic with over three decades of experience under my belt, I’ve seen my fair share of cinematic masterpieces and disasters alike. The recent release of “Here” left me feeling somewhat ambivalent. On one hand, Robert Zemeckis, Tom Hanks, and the rest of the star-studded cast delivered some truly compelling performances that were hard to ignore. However, the film’s execution left much to be desired.


Robert Zemeckis is known for directing two of America’s finest films ever made (Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit). However, over the past ten years, his creative approach seems to have shifted into autopilot mode. As FLETCHER might put it, “Two facts can coexist.” Since the mid-2010s, Zemeckis has predominantly worked on retellings of documentaries that surpassed their original narratives (The Walk, Welcome to Marwen) or reimaginings of family movies (The Witches, Pinocchio). He’s found himself repeating the past, even incorporating a tiresome, lengthy sequence in Marwen featuring a homemade toy time-traveling DeLorean.

In this case, I would rephrase the given text as follows:

The film Here offers a stationary viewpoint centered on a specific location in North America, with directors Roth and Zemeckis guiding viewers on a non-linear journey through the house’s history spanning from the dinosaur age to William Franklin’s time, eventually reaching the 19th century construction of the house. Numerous residents pass through this dwelling’s walls, among them an inventor famous for creating the La-Z-Boy recliner. However, the main focus is the story of the Young family. Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose Young (Kelly Reilly) moved into this house in 1945 following World War II and had three children there, including Richard (Tom Hanks).

In this tale, a son finds himself smitten with Margaret (Robin Wright) and together they establish a household. Yet, Margaret yearns intensely to depart from this dwelling and pursue her most lofty aspirations. The narrative, titled “Here“, delves into the persistent hardships that afflict the Young family and the inhabitants of this house. A common thread weaving through the diverse narratives in “Here” is sorrow. Regardless of whether you’re an unnamed Native couple, a woman married to an early aviator in the 1910s, or a family grappling with the aftermath of COVID-19, death and loss are inescapable. Everything has its end. Nothing persists. Time slips through our fingers regardless of our position in society’s hierarchy.

As a dedicated fan, I must acknowledge that Here truly delves into a somber and melancholic ambiance, which is indeed praiseworthy. Unlike his younger self who crafted the heartwarming masterpiece Forrest Gump three decades ago, Zemeckis now, in his 70s, seems to be exploring a more introspective perspective. The past is no longer a rose-tinted nostalgia intended to please Baby Boomers. Instead, through the realistic and non-sensational lens of his camera, yesteryear appears raw, disquieting, and marred by unfulfilled potential. In their most powerful scenes, actors such as Reilly and Hanks deliver compelling performances that vividly portray the weight of existence.

In this case, the issue lies in the fact that ‘Here’ aspires to be visually and thematically intricate, but the dialogue, often witty and clever, detracts from its intended observational and everyday feel. The dialogue frequently veers into overly clever remarks rather than genuine observations, with characters delivering lines that are either too profound or outdated, such as “In ten years, nobody will ever remember the name Benjamin Franklin!” which is meant to provoke a smug chuckle from the audience. Additionally, some of the dialogue, like Vanessa’s “I guess no aerobics tonight!”, appears forced and unnatural, as if written by an alien trying to understand human behavior.

In this writing style, the characters in “Here” fail to feel realistic and well-rounded due to dialogue that appears more focused on explaining things than developing personalities. This is a major issue hindering the production’s success. The overly explicit guidance given by the storytelling resembles a clumsy approach, which doesn’t mesh well with the camera work that mirrors “Notes from Home.” For instance, a critical scene involving Margaret returning home to find a loved one unconscious on the ground should evoke strong emotions, but it falls flat when Zemeckis chooses to show Margaret’s movements in slow motion. This slows down what should be a devastating sequence.

The visual elements aimed to emphasize the significance of this moment for Margaret, but they instead created distance between her and the viewers. This part is overly dramatic and unnecessary, as the sequence’s emotional intensity is already palpable. Unfortunately, Alan Silvestri’s music overwhelms this scene in Here. While he does excellent work, such as composing music for a long, dialogue-free prologue, his melodies frequently overstate emotional points that should be conveyed subtly through acting.

Then again, such acting often isn’t possible through Zemeckis once again lathering his actors in digital de-aging work. Here’s deeply intimate scope just seals the deal on how this style of visual effects wizardry is often (unless Martin Scorsese is behind the camera) antithetical to good acting. Richard and Margaret’s early life sees the duo realized as plastic dolls thanks to all this CG. There’s a moment where digitally de-aged Robin Wright is cradling a CG baby that looks especially ludicrous. Anytime characters come up close to the camera and let audiences linger on their creepily smooth digital faces, it’s hard not to stifle laughter.

In a more refined manner, the movie “Here” seems to struggle with its deeper intentions. Despite Zemeckis’ attempts, it appears that this film isn’t far from the family movies he made that received mixed responses. The dialogue is heavy-handed and much of the action is overwhelmed by digital effects. Sadly, these aspects didn’t serve “The Polar Express,” “Pinocchio,” or “The Witches” well, and they don’t improve “Here” either.

Despite all those faults, though, I couldn’t bring myself to dismiss Here. There are some affecting moments in here, many of them coming from Hanks and Wright cutting through all the VFX nonsense to deliver something tangibly human. Zemeckis and cinematographer Don Burgess also demonstrate welcome commitment to the unmoving camera conceit. Their visual scheme also includes a nod to the source material involving the use of square panels that signal transitions in time. Ang Lee’s Hulk is beaming, I’m sure, seeing those panels on the big screen!

In this film, Here, there seems to be a greater complexity compared to most of Robert Zemeckis’ films from the 21st century. It’s quite chaotic with dialogue and visual effects that sometimes seem poorly thought out. However, it holds an intriguing quality due to its heavy exploration of the inevitability of death, a theme that resonates deeply. The movie appears to use McGuire’s graphic novel as a medium to emphasize this truth. Although it may not reach the depth and insight of films by Ryusuke Hamaguchi or Kirsten Johnson, it certainly steers clear of being another “Welcome to Marwen 2.0”.

Read More

Sorry. No data so far.

2024-11-05 18:15