Similarly to Francis Ford Coppola and "Megalopolis" over a month ago, "Here" is another film from a well-established director that ends up a confused disappointment. To be fair, the idea behind this project was never without potential. The camera is set in place into one specific spot throughout all of time. From the dinosaur age to today, we're confined to a specific spot that takes place mostly in a house. We witness the various inhabitants of the land and home live their lives and grow up. An interesting idea on paper.
The primary problem with "Here" can be summarized in precisely one word: aimless. In short, the film lacks focus and a firm structure, which is what you need for a narrative like this to work. Within the first 10 minutes, the approach to the direction and editing is apparent. Follow one of many various narratives in this spot for around 30 seconds to a minute before transitioning to a different narrative at another time. That's right. This is one of those non-linear narratives that quickly travels to and fro without any rhyme or reason.
This storytelling decision makes even less sense when you realize that some of these stories don't feel finished. For a film that regularly switches back and forth between various subplots, "Here" leaves at least half of its stories incomplete. That means the subplots with the least amount of time, namely the indigenous subplot and the COVID-19 narrative, could've easily been cut out. The plot we follow the most concerns Tom Hanks and Robin Wright's relationship and their caring for his parents (Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly).
The closest thing to a complete character arc as well as the most consistent performance belongs to Paul Bettany. Of all the characters in the story, his is the most fleshed out and comprehensible. Tom Hanks experiences a similar story arc to Bettany's, but it feels like we're missing vital information to clarify his character's changes. It should be noted that deaging effects were used for both Hanks and Wright to play younger versions of themselves. Unfortunately, the quality of the deaging AI is mixed at best.
Because nothing represents an 18 year old guy better than a 68 year old actor using deaging effects. That's not going to look awkwardly waxy in the slightest. Granted, it could've looked worse. But this was brought to us by Robert Zemeckis, the same director who helmed "Back to the Future" almost 40 years ago. He's done amazing things back in the 1980's with special effects, namely the combination of animation and live-action in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". You'd think there'd be more impressive innovation visually.
The practical set design is good, but the special effects are fairly standard. I'm not going to complain about seeing a hummingbird though, even if it's CG. The best side characters are easily this 1940's couple, played by David Fynn and Ophelia Lovibond. If the film were more about these two and the inventor's plight with creating the La-Z-Boy recliner, I would've gotten more into this flick for sure. I feel like the energy this film needs to stand out from the crowd would come from those segments alone.
As it is though, the film is overstuffed and more disjointed than it should be. And I truly feel that the non-linear approach is definitely to blame. You're unable to let important plot points sink in. It barely avoids being a Michael Bay or Baz Luhrmann film with its constant cuts and transitions, but not by much. This isn’t a case of incompetent editing as much as it's a series of questionable editing choices. You can do non-linear storytelling correctly. But this isn't the way to go about it.
"Here" is an unnecessarily frustrating watch, because I know there is potential inside waiting to be realized or unleashed. Some narrative elements like the La-Z-Boy inventor can be great, if only they had the proper support to back it up. Instead, we're given 2 to 5 minutes devoted to subplots that amount to nothing in the end. There's the engine of a solid foundation within this experience, but "Here" is lacking when it comes to its purpose and the ability to commit to a focused vision.
Final Verdict: 5.5/10
Comments