Here Movie Review - Years of our Lives
November has finally rolled around and you know what that means: it’s Oscar Bait season. It is a time of year when filmmakers release ambitious, extravagant projects specifically designed not to captivate a wide audience, but to win film awards, primarily the mighty golden Oscar trophy. We’ve seen in it films about a slice of life of a particular character, dramas about a specific era in history, or even emotional, feel-good stories about personal life experiences several can relate to with a dynamic cast of critically accomplished Hollywood actors. In the case of Robert Zemeckis’ Here, the movie says: “Would you like a movie about all of the above? Boy, do we have a movie for you! All in one cinematic package!” The thing is once I opened the package to see what’s inside, what I beheld was technologically impressive on the outside, but hollow and unsubstantial on the inside.
You see, Robert Zemeckis is sort of like Ridley Scott in a way. He has the competence to dish out a groundbreaking masterpiece or two or three, but every now and then, he makes a film so incredibly misguided that it bewilders the mind that something like Disney’s live-action Pinocchio could come from the eyes and talent of Robert himself. As for Here, it’s more of a film you respect for its production and its interesting gimmick rather than one you will find yourself watching over and over again, like many of Zemeckis’ revered features. It’s not pretentious enough to be abhorrent, nor is it brilliant or arresting sufficient to be an actual awards contender.
Zemeckis’ latest work is an adaptation of a nearly ten-year-old graphic novel by Richard McGuire of the same name. It’s been regarded heavily as a masterpiece; as one of the most innovative of its kind in years. Originating as a six-page comic in Raw magazine, McGuire expanded his personal experiment into a peerless 304-page escapism into the lives of people and events throughout many generations that all transpired in this one corner of a living room but told in a non-linear structure. From the extinction of the dinosaurs to the Revolutionary War, to the Cold War, all the way to the year 2033 AD.
The film adaptation aims for the same approach as the book, telling several stories in non-chronological order. However, in the mix of this film traveling through time, the primary story focuses on the Young family, beginning with Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose Young (Kelly Reilly) owning the house at the end of World War II. As the years go by and as they watch their kids grow up, the film eventually passes on the spotlight torch to Al’s son Richard (Tom Hanks) and his soon-to-be wife Margaret (Robin Wright) as they spend their life together in the house with the whole family through heartfelt and devastating drama.
This film is flooded with accomplished performers (the most recognizable being Michelle Dockery from Downton Abbey popularity, Paul Bettany, and the iconic Forrest Gump couple, Tom Hanks and Robin Wright) and the majority of them are exceptionally acted, including the child actors who perform the younger versions of our leads and the leads’ children. Though, admittedly, it’s very jarring to witness Paul Bettany and Tom Hanks perform as father and son together in de-aging effects, even though Bettany is 15 years younger than Tom Hanks in real life.
But if I were to be honest, a small amount of the stories—while decorated with pristine costume and production design representing the centuries they take place in (with several embellishments such as music videos on the television, radio announcements, and nostalgic, historical references) — could be easily truncated from the picture and they can only be carried by the terrific performances for so long before it suddenly dawns on you that you don’t care about any of these characters or the drama they get themselves involved with.
As much as the film wants us to be engrossed in all of these storylines, such as the Young family’s story and another in which a couple get rich off of inventing the La-Z-Boy recliner, some are wasted with such minute screen presence to get us to understand and empathize with them — an example revolving around the Influenza epidemic of the late 1910s or the Revolutionary War against the British — or are pretty superfluous and felt forced to the plot (such as a family in 2020s amidst the COVID-19 pandemic). There’s a lot of potential wasted, had some subplots been taken out in exchange for depth and improved storytelling, you could’ve had something impressive.
“Here” fits all of the requirements of your average Oscar Bait picture. It has recognizable actors from his filmography or other critically acclaimed movies, its film-making is borderline experimental and visually stimulating, the production design is marvelous and Alan Silvestri’s score is sublime. However, while the film has a heart, it ultimately lacks a soul. The characters that are supposed to carry this generational journey with the audience have no dimension or emotional impact of any kind and result in being figurines walking in and out of the frame. I admire the attempt Zemeckis took with such an unfilmmable source, but I believe that Zemeckis’ assignment would’ve worked much better as a short film. Had it been a 30-minute short film, this would’ve been a worthy awards contender. It’s a shame how something so artistic can become so empty.
RATING: 2.5/5
