close
close

Guiltandivy

Source for News

    • Tom Hanks' new film is a little too unreal
    Update Information

    Tom Hanks' new film is a little too unreal

    Kathleen William Posted on

    play

    In “Forrest Gump,” Tom Hanks walked through history. Time is not so kind in “Here,” where Hanks — and an overstuffed narrative — seem stuck with nowhere to go.

    “Gump” fans will love seeing the band reunite as Hanks and co-star Robin Wright reunite, along with director Robert Zemeckis and his co-writer Eric Roth. And “Here” (★★ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday) is a fascinating cinematic experiment that uses a fixed camera position to show how life and people have changed over millions of years change, from prehistory to modern times. But this overly sentimental, overly serious journey based on Richard McGuire's graphic novel is more gimmick than substance, a journey filled with moments and characters that ultimately proves unfulfilling.

    Join our Watch Party! Sign in to get USA TODAY's movie and TV recommendations delivered straight to your inbox.

    “Here” begins with dinosaurs running through primordial ooze, the cosmic destruction that befell them in a rather apocalyptic manner, and also an ice age, then we fast forward through the indigenous and colonial eras before finally getting into the core story. From a vantage point in their living room, we meet troubled World War II veteran Al Young (Paul Bettany) and 1940s housewife Rose (Kelly Reilly), and later her artist son Richard (Tom Hanks). Richard meets Margaret (Wright) and falls in love with her, and when the two become pregnant as teenagers, have a baby and get married, Margaret moves in.

    “Here” focuses primarily on the emotional lineage of this clan across many decades, various holiday dinners, and sporadic moments in history (like the Beatles via Ed Sullivan as seen on television). Margaret's resentment grows when Richard's lack of ambition forces him to stay in a house that she never feels is hers. Richard and Al constantly worry about money, while Margaret and Rose miss out on their own dreams. It's not exactly uplifting stuff, but the performances are strong enough to keep you rooting for them over obstacles, and you don't have to be a time traveler to see it coming.

    Zemeckis is able to hide the film's flaws with his nifty narrative device, using pop-up windows (a nod to the film's source material) to switch between time periods, sometimes depicting multiple eras in the same sequence. At this point the film tries a little too hard by including other families who lived in the house to emphasize the principle that “time flies, so make the most of it.”

    There's a flighty flyboy (Gwilym Lee) and his posh wife (Michelle Dockery) who move in as the house is being built in 1900; a pin-up model (Ophelia Lovibond) and an inventor (David Fynn) who lived there in the 1930s and '40s; and a black family (Nikki Amuka-Bird, Nicholas Pinnock and Cache Vanderpuye) who are 21st-century tenants. Not to mention an Indigenous couple (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum) who lived outside the house itself. While some appear as colorful supporting characters, none are truly meaningfully developed, and their appearances often interrupt the main plot.

    As a result, members of the Young family become supporting characters: Richard and Margaret's daughter Vanessa (Zsa Zsa Zemeckis) is particularly short-changed, a girl interested in jazz sports and law, and that's about it. Or maybe we can attribute it to the fact that she doesn't spend much time in the living room.

    While Hanks and Wright's “Gump” reunion is fine, their digital aging is off-putting. It's all a bit too unreal, but with young Bettany and Reilly – the two main characters as teenagers – it works a little better, it's just creepy. At least her older self won't give you nightmares later.

    However, the meandering film's ambition and originality are admirable, and it also has enjoyably zany aspects, such as Benjamin Franklin's illegitimate son owning the huge colonial house across the street. It is not uncommon for you to prefer being there rather than “here”.

    Tagged:

    LEAVE A RESPONSE

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Kathleen William
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like

    ads