‘Here’ review: Robert Zemeckis, Tom Hanks and Robin Wright reunite

72-year-old American film director Robert Zemeckis has had a storied career on par with few others. He’s the visionary behind the extraordinary collision of live-action comedy and comic book chaos. Who framed Roger Rabbit?. He created a world of sci-fi/comedy bliss. back to the future and the eerie splendor of cult worshipers. death becomes her. But far from the outlandish humor of these works, he directed iconic works. forest gumpa literary adaptation that thrilled audiences and the Academy, who awarded the decades-spanning drama a total of six Oscars, including Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture.

here, Zemeckis’ latest products have a lot in common Forest Gump. At the casting level, reunite forest gump Starring Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, they once again play the roles of young lovers who find themselves in the 1950s and 1960s. Teaming up with Zemeckis again forest gumpEric Roth, the Oscar-winning screenwriter for the original “I Love You”, is now tasked with adapting the original graphic novel. new york times Illustrator Richard McGuire. here It’s also a timeless and heartwarming drama that takes place not just over decades, but over centuries and even millennia.

But within this familiar framework, Zemeckis speaks of big risks, much like his lesser-known collaboration with Hanks. polar express And Disney’s live-action movie pinocchio. His early films wowed us with practical effects and won him accolades, but when he later dived into digital effects, he often fell into the ugly uncanny valley. But even if it gets bogged down in the details, there are obvious reasons to admire its ambition and seriousness. here.

here A timeless family story.

Remarkably, here It gives the impression that it was taken in one shot. Let’s be clear: it’s not the one long take it seems like an exhilarating real-time zombie thriller. Mads. Recreate McGuire’s comic look — As teased in the trailer – whole here The action unfolds in front of it, but is shot from a planted perspective. The trick is not to play them in chronological order, but rather to play them at the same time.

The frame presented by Zemeckis shows a New England living room inside a “semi-colonial” house built in 1900. There, various furniture and decorations visually smoothly transition, disappearing and disappearing to reveal a muddy quagmire. A place where dinosaurs frolic, then a plain whitened by the Ice Age, then a lush forest where Native Americans hunt, gather, and fall in love. But in most cases, here The film is set in a living room and follows a family in the early 20th century, post-Jazz Age, and post-World War II.

There, stories collide through frames within frames outlined in white, representing the inspiration for the comics. So while many of the scenes may be set in the 1960s, where a teenage boy (Tom Hanks, courtesy of de-aging CGI – more on that later!) is forced to meet his drunken father (Paul Bettany) ) and start an argument, but the internal frame may reveal the family that came earlier. Images of weddings, Thanksgiving celebrations, marital quarrels, funerals, and more can be superimposed on top of the scenes, all of which unfold in this seemingly average space, all concisely told in a run time of 1 hour and 44 minutes. will be displayed. So why does it feel so long?

here It’s a strange experiment at war with itself.

Credit: Sony Pictures

When you see a frame-within-a-frame device expanded across the screen, it’s easy to see how it works in a graphic novel. Each rectangle on the page prompts you to imagine what lies just outside its borders. Not only is it a constant reminder of perspective, but it’s also a reminder of how the limitations of the comic book’s own medium can fuel the imagination.

Cinema as a form is being taken more literally by audiences, and this is Zemeckis’ first challenge. In some scenes, characters step out of the frame, forcing the audience to imagine what is happening off-camera, but the visual stimulation of new information that accumulates moment by moment makes it difficult for us to understand the meaning of this device. There’s hardly any time to rush. Yet, despite the collage effects at work throughout the story, the film feels stuck in a fixed position. Some may wonder why this location, and perhaps that could be the reason Any The spot is the key. But with its fixed locations, the film feels more like a record of a stage show than a movie, with performances to match.

Zemeckis’ choices are bold and often uncomfortable.

Credit: Sony Pictures

While the film skips through time, a star-studded ensemble treads the boards in this living room. Among them are Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, who played teenage lovers who get married, have children, and face a variety of adult troubles in this space, as well as Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, who played fin-de-siècle women’s suffragettes. Michelle Dockery and Ophelia Lovibond also appear. The Enthusiastic Flapper stars David Finn as her enthusiastic inventor husband, Daniel Betts as Benjamin Franklin’s failed illegitimate son, Nicky Amuka-Byrd as a wealthy 2020s businessman, and Joel Woollett and Danny McCallum play an unnamed Indigenous couple.

But the main story begins with Paul Bettany as a WII veteran and Kelly Reilly as his doting wife. Their story is a cliche: he’s an easily angered patriarch whose parenting tools are yelling and endless bourbon drinking, while she smoothens everything out until she’s physically unable to do it anymore. She is a smiling mother who is devoted to her work. The rough edges of Roth’s script are only enhanced by the pair’s broadly theatrical acting style. Perhaps the idea is to emulate the grandeur of Golden Age cinema, the black-and-white classics of the 1940s with their imposing men and fast-talking women. However, this theatricality extends throughout the timeline, but is tempered when the characters are more emotionally rigid (Dockery) or pensive (Wright). Still, the tone that Zemeckis pursues calls attention to itself and prevents the audience from settling into the story.

Interestingly, Zemeckis rejects the standard American film striving for authenticity in performance. The film has no interest in how people actually talk, preferring a far more sentimental approach that veers into allegory. These characters are not only inexplicably forced to make major life decisions, such as giving up on their dreams of painting as soon as their survival tasks are accomplished, but they are forced to make them repeatedly. our citySomething like a revelation about the cruelty of time’s never-ending momentum. here “” is a very sad movie, and I always worry about how quickly time passes, but the running time itself feels like it flies by.

Roth’s main story about this 20th century family is cliched and convoluted, making every reveal feel a little inevitable. The wordless story of an Indigenous couple falling in love, raising a child, dying, and grieving is simplistic but mostly elegant. Except for a harrowing close-up that reveals how awkward the makeup effects look. But Hanks and company are given scenes detailing their purpose, spelling out every emotion and telegraphing at every turn. So despite their enthusiastic performance, the effect is stagnant, made worse by the fixed camera perspective.

here It feels more like a play or a gallery exhibition than a movie.

Perhaps the idea of ​​physical space as a kind of palimpsest in which the characters lived parallel lives might have been more convincing as a visual projection on stage or in a gallery. In the latter, the dialogue could have been reduced or even removed to give the audience more freedom to interpret the action, rather than being spoon-fed the emotional beats. If this had been performed on stage, Zemeckis might have been able to convey the character’s aging through costumes, gestures, wigs, and make-up, instead of the incredible technique he employed in this production. here.

As it stands, the CGI used to transform 68-year-old Hanks and 58-year-old Wright into teenagers is just as distracting as the film’s weird, dead-eyed animated characters. polar express You have ruined the wonder of Christmas. hereVFX team You might be able to digitally redefine your jawline or erase wrinkles, but the people left behind aren’t real and definitely don’t look like teenagers. The effect is not disastrous, but its artificiality cannot be ignored and it takes us away from the reality the film wants to present. Theater audiences are ready and willing to accept the fantasy, even if the seam of a wig cap or a microphone taped to their forehead is visible. In movies, our suspension of disbelief flickers every time a digital effect looks like a digital effect. and here It often shows off the limits of CGI.

This anti-aging distraction inevitably draws our eyes to other strange details. For example, a birthday cake, which is obviously a prop because it weighs as much as Styrofoam. Or how strange it would be for an aspiring painter who dreamed of becoming a professional artist to paint only what exists in this particular living room. like polar express and pinocchioZemeckis seems so fascinated by his vision that he overlooks details of execution that could detract from it. He can see the forest beyond the living room, but he can’t see the trees.

lastly, here In fits and starts, it functions as a movie. Some scenes are definitely charming, including every bit of Lovibond and Finn romancing while designing a recliner. Other scenes are less effective. The main reason is that the film’s theatrical tone lends itself to the very real and traumatic stories that we, as the audience, have experienced ourselves, such as grappling with grief, worrying about parenting, and battling dementia. Because it touches on such a theme. I wish it had been a tight, engaging short film instead. Overall, here is far from a consistent and convincing drama. forest gumpIt’s a far cry from the exhilarating world-building of . Who framed Roger Rabbit? or death becomes her.

In many ways, here is an experiment in framing and concept that went awry. Still, I’m in awe that Zemeckis did it. Despite the film’s rough edges, his passion and sentimentality are as evident as ever.

here Reviewed from the world premiere at AFI Fest. The movie will be released in theaters on November 1st.