HERE. Warning! Zemeckis’ Nostalgic Attack [REVIEW]

“It is impossible to step twice into the same river,” wrote Heraclitus of Ephesus, expressing his belief in the perpetual flux of existence. Robert Zemeckis seems intent on expanding the Ionian philosopher’s ideas slightly. His Here is a kind of meditation on the notion that, although the world is indeed constantly transforming, there are things that remain universal to humanity—namely, emotions.

Zemeckis tests Heraclitus’s philosophy on a practical level as well, by reuniting with the team behind one of his greatest cinematic successes, Forrest Gump (1994). The screenplay for Here was co-written by Zemeckis and Eric Roth, with Don Burgess as cinematographer, Alan Silvestri composing the score, and starring Tom Hanks and Robin Wright in leading roles. This approach is reminiscent of what Sam Mendes did in Revolutionary Road (2008), pairing Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, the iconic duo from James Cameron’s timeless Titanic (1997). It begs the question: what could possibly go wrong with Here? Mendes had a clear and compelling vision for his film, and its critical reception wasn’t built solely on the names involved. Zemeckis, on the other hand, seems to have relied heavily on nostalgia, as there’s little in his latest work to genuinely move the audience.

Speaking of movement, Here doesn’t move. The film offers glimpses into the lives of various families through the static perspective of a camera situated somewhere between the living room and kitchen of a house. There’s even a family of dinosaurs—long before the foundation for the house, later adorned with whimsical siding, was laid—but let’s not dwell on that. This intriguing cinematographic idea stems from the film’s source material: Richard McGuire’s graphic novel, Here. Unfortunately for Zemeckis and his team, what likely works on the pages of a graphic novel falls flat on the big screen. Initially, the static framing might pique interest, but it quickly falters as the living room—the film’s central stage—is populated by characters and narratives incapable of eliciting emotional investment.

The lack of emotional engagement may stem from the sheer number of stories crammed into the film, leaving no room to breathe between one sentimental scene and the next. The film juggles a love story between Native Americans, the tale of Benjamin Franklin’s illegitimate son, a story about an early 20th-century pilot, the invention of a revolving chair with a footrest (yes, really) and its inventor’s relationship, the lives of a war veteran and his wife (Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly), the story of their son and his beloved (Tom Hanks and Robin Wright), and finally, a contemporary Black family grappling with racial discrimination and the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative overload prevents the audience from fully engaging with any single family, while the dramatic scenes often feel manipulative, prompting viewers to emotionally shield themselves. Worse still, many tragic moments can be met with laughter or exasperated headshakes due to their lack of subtlety, bizarre transitions (e.g., moving from a leaky roof to a woman’s water breaking), and overly theatrical performances (looking at you, Paul Bettany).

No discussion of Here would be complete without mentioning the use of CGI and de-aging technology. While the latter isn’t particularly distracting, it does pull focus from the narrative to the actors’ altered appearances. The CGI animals, on the other hand, are glaringly artificial, detracting from the film’s credibility.

Here is yet another misstep for Robert Zemeckis in recent years. It’s a film that delivers platitudes, reminding viewers that time flies, that one should cherish what they have, and that it’s important to stay true to oneself. While these messages are worth revisiting, they deserve a more compelling and authentic presentation—one that doesn’t feel dull, artificial, or overtly manipulative.