Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: An unmoving camera and de-aging technology make 'Here' with Tom Hanks painful to watch

Published

on

Movie Review: An unmoving camera and de-aging technology make 'Here' with Tom Hanks painful to watch

Robert Zemeckis’ latest movie is insanely ambitious, starting with the dinosaurs and ending in present day with the Roomba. But it’s fixed on just one spot.

“Here” reunites Zemeckis, screenwriter Eric Roth and actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, who collaborated on “Forrest Gump.” This time, they’re not telling the larger-than-life story of a man moving through time — they’re telling the centuries-old story of a living room and all the different people who lived there.

In this living room, we see a wedding, a death, a birth, a marriage tested, a funeral, lots of vacuuming, many birthdays, Christmases and Thanksgivings, some sex, adults getting drunk and Jazzercise.

Zemeckis puts the camera at a fixed angle for the movie’s entire 105-minute duration without moving. It’s not so strange after a while — so bursting with life is each shot and vignette — but there’s a gnawing feeling that we’re in some sort of film experiment, like testing an audience on how long they’ll watch old security camera footage.

This image released by Sony Pictures Entertainment shows Tom Hanks, left, and Robin Wright in a scene from “Here.” (Sony Pictures via AP)
Advertisement
Image

Hanks and Wright on Friday, Oct. 25, 2024, at TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)

The camera may not move but the eras do, melting back and forth in time from pre-history, to the 1700s, to the 1940s, back to hunter-gatherer times and then the ’60s and ’70s, before hitting the early 1900s. It begins and ends in 2022.

Advertisement

Hanks and Wright form the movie’s spine, as Richard and Margaret. Over dozens of little scenes, we watch him as a boy grow up in the house and fall in love with Margaret, marry, move her in, have a baby and inherit it all. Whether they survive as a couple isn’t guaranteed.

Zemeckis is a filmmaker known for incorporating the latest in technology and this time it’s de-aging as a visual effect, basically turning 68-year-old Hanks into what he looked like while filming “Splash.” It’s a lot of work, clumsy often, and Zemeckis has gotten lost in the uncanny valley, trying to tell a very human story about what unites us but by altering the actors so much that the human connection is lost. Look closely and you’ll see cigarette smoke go into one character, but never come out.

Other roles include Richard’s parents — played brilliantly by Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly — and some unconnected people: a fun-loving couple living in the home from 1925 to 1944, and a less fun couple in the early 1900s. There’s an Indigenous couple in the 1600s who frolic in the space the living room will take over in 300 years and another family who rides out 2020 in the house amid the pandemic.

If that isn’t enough, we have an appearance by Benjamin Franklin. Why Benjamin Franklin? He’s connected to the house across the street. What he adds is not entirely clear. The movie could do with fewer Founding Fathers and cutesy touches like hummingbirds.

Image

Hanks and Wright in a scene from “Here.” (Sony Pictures via AP)

Advertisement

We watch the living room as a TV is added — the Beatles’ performance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” leads to “CHiPs” — and the vehicles outside go from horse to Model Ts to sedans. The home goes from $3,400 just after World War II to $1 million today and the fashions go from Victorian heeled boots to teased hair and American flag shirts.

“Here” — based on the graphic novel by Richard McGuire — is best when events at different times are linked — like when a roof starts leaking in one era only to dissolve into a pregnant woman’s water breaking in another. Or when there’s mention of influenza in 1918 and we later see the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

One theme that is touched on but could have been strengthened is the impact of downsizing and economic disruptions on psyches, with Richard’s father in full Willy Loman mode one day, sobbing after being laid off: “They shrunk me.” Deferred dreams are another, but there’s not enough time for that if you’ve got silly visits by Benjamin Franklin. And while it’s inclusive to embrace Native Americans, the scenes add little to the narrative.

Advertisement
Image

Filmmaker Robert Zemeckis, left, with Hanks and Wright on the set of “Here.” (Sony Pictures via AP)

“Here” fails to connect all these centuries of human experiences, other than to celebrate the human experience in all its messiness, triumph and sadness. In fact, if these walls could talk, most of the characters are happiest away from this living room. Maybe the strongest theme is uttered by one character lamenting: “Time just went.”

Zemeckis nicely apes the graphic novel’s use of squares within the frame that show a peek at what’s going on in different eras — like little time travel devices — and kudos to Jesse Goldsmith for fantastic editing work.

Advertisement

But one visual trick sums up the movie: It’s supposed to be the story of a real wood-and-brick house, but it was filmed at Sony’s studio complex in Culver City, California. The main character is fake. “Here” is nowhere.

“Here,” a Sony Pictures release that premieres Friday in theaters, is rated PG-13 for “thematic material, some suggestive material, brief strong language and smoking.” Running time: 105 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

‘Black Rabbit, White Rabbit’ Review: Disqualified for the Oscars, Tajikistan Drama Is an Inviting, Meandering Meta-Narrative

Published

on

‘Black Rabbit, White Rabbit’ Review: Disqualified for the Oscars, Tajikistan Drama Is an Inviting, Meandering Meta-Narrative

Selected by Tajikistan but ultimately not accepted by the Academy to compete in the Oscar international feature category, “Black Rabbit, White Rabbit” begins ambitiously, with a famous quote from playwright Anton Chekhov about setups and payoffs — about how if a gun is established in a story, it must go off. Moments later, an inviting long take involving a young man selling an antique rifle ends in farcical tragedy, signaling an equally farcical series of events that grow stranger and stranger. The film, by Iranian director Shahram Mokri, folds in on itself in intriguing (albeit protracted) ways, warping its meta-fictional boundaries until they supersede its characters, or any underlying meaning.

Still, it’s a not-altogether-uninteresting exercise in exploring the contours of storytelling, told through numerous thematically interconnected vignettes. The opening Chekhov quote, though it might draw one’s attention to minor details that end up insignificant, ensures a heightened awareness of the movie’s artifice, until the film eventually pulls back and becomes a tale of its own making. But en route to this semi-successful postmodern flourish, its character drama is enticing enough on its own, with hints of magical realism. It begins with the tale of a badly injured upper-class woman, Sara (Hasti Mohammai), discovering that her car accident has left her with the ability to communicate with household objects.

Sara’s bandages need changing, and the stench of her ointment becomes a quick window into her relationships. Her distant husband rejects her; her boisterous stepdaughter is more frank, but ultimately accepting; her gardener and handyman stays as diplomatic as he can. However, the film soon turns the gunfire payoff in its prologue into a broader setup of its own, as a delivery man shows up at Sara’s gate, insisting that she accept delivery for an object “the deceased man” has paid for.

Mokri eventually returns to this story (through a slightly tilt-shifted lens), but not before swerving headfirst into a seemingly unrelated saga of extras on a film set and a superstitious prop master, Babak (Babak Karimi), working on a shot-for-shot remake of an Iranian classic. A mix of rapid-fire Tajik, Persian and Russian dialogue creates dilemma upon dilemma when Babak’s ID goes missing, preventing him from being able to thoroughly check the prop ammunition for an assassination scene.

Danger begins to loom — a recent Alec Baldwin case even warrants a mention on-screen — as the notion of faulty firearms yanks Chekhov’s wisdom front and center once more, transforming it from a writing tip into a phantasmagorical inevitability. In keeping with the previous story, the props even communicate with each other (through subtitles) and begin gossiping about what might come to pass.

Advertisement

After establishing these narrative parameters through unbroken, fluid shots filmed at a sardonic distance, Mokri soon begins playing mischievous temporal games. He finds worthwhile excuses to revisit scenes from either different angles or with a slightly altered aesthetic approach — with more proximity and intimacy — in order to highlight new elements of his mise-en-scène. What’s “real” and “fictional,” even within the movie’s visual parlance, begins to blur in surreal ways, largely pivoting around Babak simply trying to do his job. However, the more this tale engorges through melodic, snaking takes, the more it circles around a central point, rather than approaching it.

The film’s own expanse becomes philosophically limiting, even though it remains an object of curiosity. When it’s all said and done, the playfulness on display in “Black Rabbit, White Rabbit” is quite remarkable, even if the story’s contorting framework seldom amounts to much, beyond drawing attention to itself. It’s cinema about cinema in a manner that, on one hand, lives on the surface, but on the other hand, invites you to explore its texture in ways few other movies do.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Christmas Karma’ movie review: A Bollywood Carol with little cheer

Published

on

‘Christmas Karma’ movie review: A Bollywood Carol with little cheer

Kunal Nayyar in ‘Christmas Karma’
| Photo Credit: True Bit Entertainment/YouTube

Christmas jumpers are all I can remember of this film. As this reimagining of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol dragged on with sickly-sweet sentimentality and song, my eyes constantly tried to work out whether those snowflakes and reindeer were printed on the jerseys or, if knitted, how complicated the patterns would have been.

Christmas Karma (English)

Director: Gurinder Chadha

Starring: Kunal Nayyar, Leo Suter, Charithra Chandran, Pixie Lott, Danny Dyer, Boy George, Hugh Bonneville, Billy Porter, Eva Longoria, Mia Lomer

Storyline: A miserly businessman learns the true meaning of Christmas when visited by ghosts of Christmas past, present and future

Advertisement

Runtime: 114 minutes

Gurinder Chadha, who gave us the gorgeous Bend it Like Beckham (who wants to make aloo gobi when you can bend the ball like Beckham indeed) has served up an unappetising Bollywood song-and-dance version of Dickens’ famous Christmas story.

A still from the film

A still from the film
| Photo Credit:
True Bit Entertainment/YouTube

A curmudgeonly Indian businessman, Ishaan Sood (Kunal Nayyar), fires his entire staff on Christmas Eve—except his accountant, Bob (Leo Suter)—after catching them partying at the office. Sood’s nephew, Raj (Shubham Saraf) invites him for a Christmas party which he refuses to attend.

He returns home after yelling at some carol singers for making a noise, the shopkeeper (Nitin Ganatra) at the corner for his business decisions and a cabbie (Danny Dyer) for being too cheerful.

His cook-housekeeper, Mrs. Joshi (Shobu Kapoor) tells him to enjoy his dinner in the dark as he has not paid for heat or electricity. He is visited by the spirit of his dead business partner, Marley (Hugh Bonneville), who is in chains with the spirits of all the people he wronged. Marley’s spirit tells Sood that he will be visited by three spirits who will reveal important life lessons.

Advertisement
A still from the film

A still from the film
| Photo Credit:
True Bit Entertainment/YouTube

The Ghost of Christmas Past (Eva Longoria), with Day of the Dead makeup and three mariachis providing musical accompaniment, shows Sood his early, happy days in Uganda as a child and the trauma of being expelled from the country by Idi Amin.

Sood comes to Britain where his father dies of heartbreak and decides the only way out is to earn a lot of money. He meets and falls in love with Bea (Charithra Chandran) but loses her when he chooses paisa over pyaar even though he tries to tell her he is being ruthless only to earn enough to keep her in luxury.

The Ghost of Christmas Present (Billy Porter) shows Bob’s twee house full of Christmas cheer, despite the roast chicken past its sell-by date, and his young son, Tim, bravely smiling despite his illness.

The Ghost of Christmas Future (Boy George, Karma is sure a chameleon!) shows Sood dying alone except for Bob and Mrs. Joshi. He sees the error of his ways and throws much money around as he makes everything alright. He even ends up meeting up with his childhood friend in Uganda.

Apart from the mixed messages (money makes everything alright, let us pray for the NHS but go to Switzerland to get well) and schmaltzy songs, Christmas Karma suffers from weak writing and wooden acting.

Advertisement

Priyanka Chopra’s Hindi rendition of George Michael’s ‘Last Christmas’ runs over the end credits featuring Chadha and the crew, bringing back fond memories of Bina Mistry’s ‘Hot Hot Hot’ from Bend it Like Beckham. Even a sitar version by Anoushka Shankar is to no avail as watching this version of A Christmas Carol ensures bad karma in spades.

Christmas Karma is currently running in theatres

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Dust Bunny

Published

on

Dust Bunny

An orphaned girl hires her hitman next-door neighbor to kill the monster under her bed. This R-rated action/horror movie mashup has lots of violence but surprisingly little gore. However, there are still many gruesome moments, even if they’re just offscreen. And some language and a strange portrayal of Christian worship come up, too.

Continue Reading

Trending