In the Dark Reviews

Visuals of 'Here' dazzle, but say nothing special

Kirk Boxleitner | Nov 21, 20240

Courtesy photo count

"Forrest Gump" costars Robin Wright and Tom Hanks are reunited by their old director, Robert Zemeckis, to tour the 20th century again in "Here."

This review is going to cost me some fans, I suspect.

Robert Zemeckis' "Here," based on the 2014 graphic novel by Richard McGuire, succeeds at doing what it seems like Zemeckis wanted to do with this movie adaptation.

But that doesn't make "Here" a good movie, even if it is a visually impressive one.

It brings me no joy to write this. Once upon a time, Bob Zemeckis was a wide-eyed wunderkind in the mold of his mentor, Steven Spielberg. "Back to the Future" practically imprinted itself on my storytelling DNA, and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" innovated both animation and metafictional media commentary, while remaining a savvy sendup of noir mysteries.

Even "Forrest Gump" still qualifies as a generational touchstone - ironically, as much for those who criticized it as for those who embraced it - but by that point, Bob's escalating obsession with whiz-bang special effects started to make his films' emotions feel less earnest (or earned).

With the 21st century came the director's Uncanny Valley trifecta of 2004's "The Polar Express," 2007's "Beowulf" and 2009's "A Christmas Carol," which were populated entirely by soulless CGI golems rather than people. And while Zemeckis at least allows his talented actors' underlying humanity to shine through in "Here," the nonchronological narrative still focuses on an ostensibly average American family, consisting of this film's least interesting characters.

By fixing its stationary viewpoint on a single patch of land - most likely somewhere in Pennsylvania or neighboring New Jersey - throughout time, "Here" treats us to the extinction of the dinosaurs, a courtship among the Native Lenni-Lenape people prior to Western colonization, flashes of moments leading up to, during and following the American Revolution, and a succession of middle-class homeowners during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Zemeckis deserves credit, not only for acknowledging the Native American history of the land, but also for including a scene of a modern Black father giving his son "the talk" on how to survive an encounter with the police, if and when the young man's car is pulled over.

The rest of this film's recurring secondary vignettes are likewise far more compelling than its central thread. The schism between Benjamin Franklin and his son manages to be relatively historically accurate, while the passionate love affair between the bohemian 1940s inventor and his pinup model wife is as endearing as it is completely historically inaccurate.

Where "Here" falls apart is in its portrayal of the Young family, which begins with World War II veteran Al (Paul Bettany) and his wife Rose (Kelly Reilly), but is primarily preoccupied with their baby boomer son Richard (Tom Hanks) and his high school sweetheart-turned-wife Margaret (Robin Wright).

Because for all this film's intriguing side quests and genuinely clever transitions between disparate eras, it's a hell of a letdown to realize you're watching a Brundlefly telepod fusion of Thornton Wilder's "Our Town" and John Updike's Rabbit Angstrom novels, armed with a $50 million budget.

The Young family is meant to feel archetypal, but it descends into the stereotypical instead. Possible PTSD and a lack of either job opportunities or emotional outlets turn Al into a mean drunk. Richard feels forced to give up his big dreams after he makes similar mistakes to his father. And both Rose and Margaret wonder what might have been, if their gender and youthful pregnancies hadn't circumscribed their potential for careers outside the home.

McGuire's ambitious graphic novel extended all the way to the year 22,175 A.D., but Zemeckis devotes the bulk of his adaption of "Here" to what might as well have been renamed "Boomer Elegy," right down to using a misfiring romantic relationship between Tom Hanks and Robin Wright's characters to tour through the latter half of the 20th century, ala "Forrest Gump."

I have loved Tom Hanks like a dorky big brother ever since I first saw him in the stupid slob comedies "Bosom Buddies" and "Bachelor Party" in the early 1980s. But in his elder statesman period, his gift for conveying sincerity has become almost too effortless, much like Sir Anthony Hopkins' ability to turn on his Royal Shakespeare Company gravitas at will, like a light switch, which ironically leaves Hanks' performances feeling less authentic as a result.

And while Robin Wright deserves more credit than she tends to get for her acting skills, she and Hanks never managed to make any credible romantic chemistry spark between them in "Forrest Gump," so it's hardly surprising that they would repeat that failure in "Here."

Make no mistake, if "Here" isn't at least nominated for this year's Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, it's being robbed, and I don't doubt that this film's theme of "people are pretty much the same throughout human history" is exactly what Zemeckis intended to convey.

But much like the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer's 2012 adaptation of David Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas," such a pat fortune cookie message of a sentiment is an insufficient axis to bear the weight of so much gratuitous time-jumping and false profoundness in its contrived parallels.