Here was one big experiment for Robert Zemeckis, but unfortunately, a successful experiment does not equal a successful film. It is a perfect example of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” It fails in nearly every aspect, from its writing to the craftwork, and provokes an uncomfortable feeling just by watching its fakeness. The only reason to check it out is to see the stationary camera trick. There is no benefit of the doubt: Here is somewhere I would rather not be. 

Despite all the talent on and offscreen, Here fails to bring magic to the screen besides the occasional moment. The film follows a singular location rather than a specific character. While the idea might be cool in theory, it makes for a film with no truly interesting characters and nothing to latch onto. Here was akin to sitting through the much too-long film version of the Carousel of Progress in Disney World. Unfortunately, Here is another miss from director Robert Zemeckis.

Here stars Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly, Michelle Dockery, Gwilym Lee, David Flynn, Ophelia Lovibond, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and Nicholas Pinnock. Each of them plays homeowners in various periods, although the majority of the film focuses on Richard Young’s family (Hanks). His parents first bought the house after World War 2. We see snapshots of his upbringing, and he eventually comes to own the house as a gift from his parents. The other periods include prehistoric times when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the ice age, pre-colonial and colonial times, various decades in the 20th century, the 2000s, and modern times during COVID-19. Although there are clues based on the set decoration and the discussions occurring in the living room, having time stamps for what exact year would’ve been helpful.

Typically with a review, one would begin by outlining the plot or describing the characters, but there’s no real plot in Here, and the characters never get a chance to be anything more than boring. Snapshots of these families’ lives are told non-linearly, jumping around from period to period whenever Zemeckis decided the audience needed a momentary break from the Young family. It doesn’t do anything to benefit the story overall. In fact, the most entertaining couple was the inventor husband and model wife who created the Lazy Boy recliner because they seemed like the most fun. Spreading out the story between multiple families rather than focusing on the Young family kept me from caring especially about any one character. If the film had a narrower focus, it would’ve emphasized the point of the story that a home is special since multiple generations of the Young family lived in the house. Not to mention, it would’ve shortened the film significantly. 104 minutes is too long for the stationary camera position gimmick, but it could’ve been more digestible if it was under 90 minutes or even better, a short film. Also, there is no depth to the film. At one point late in the runtime it attempts to make a feminist statement, but it ends up dropping the ball on that. The story boils down to “life happens here” and nothing more. 

As if the story wasn’t enough of a struggle, the visual look of the film is so painfully unappealing. Here is a perfect example of the uncanny valley effect. De-aged Tom Hanks playing an 18-year-old with the voice of a man in his 60s and Paul Bettany’s wrinkle-less face as a young World War 2 veteran had me shrinking in my seat. They easily could have cast other actors in the youngest versions of their roles. It’s well known that the de-aging technology is not up to par yet, so why risk de-aging about half a century’s worth of time out of a person’s face? Also, even if I were to give Here a pass since everyone knows de-aging technology is flawed, the rest of the CGI is still so rough. I genuinely cannot tell whether or not the set was re-dressed every period or if everything is actually covered in green fabric so they can just digitally change the design. I even overheard my fellow audience members pointing out how everything was CGI and looked fake. Considering the rural area of the theater, the attendees’ awareness of how unreal it looks is a testament to the low quality. 

Sometimes a rough movie can be saved by dedicated performances, but that does not seem to be the case with Here. All the actors are fine, just cogs in the machine. They aren’t given good enough material to really make something special. Also, originally it was frustrating to see the film set at a diagonal. After some research, it turns out the camera position is based on the graphic novel where it is set at a similar angle. It’s possible to get away with it in that medium, but maybe if it were set up directly from the side as if it were a play it would be more appealing. Despite the many issues with Here, there are two positive things. First, Alan Silvestri composed a brilliant score, and its beauty is the only reason any emotions can be felt while watching the film. Second, Zemeckis used squares to transition between scenes, a nod to the graphic novel, which was a thoughtful detail. 

Here was one big experiment for Zemeckis, but unfortunately, a successful experiment does not equal a successful film. It is a perfect example of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” It fails in nearly every aspect, from its writing to the craftwork, and provokes an uncomfortable feeling just by watching its fakeness. The only reason to check it out is to see the stationary camera trick. There is no benefit of the doubt: Here is somewhere I would rather not be. 

Grade: D+

Oscars Prospects:
Likely: None
Should be Considered: None

Where to Watch: In Theaters