Film Review - Here

Images courtesy of VVS Films.

Every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end.

The passage of time is relentless, pressing forward without pause and leaving us longing to cherish the quiet moments that linger like peanut butter on the brain; something which can very much define much of Bob Zemeckis’ storied filmography. Unlike Forrest Gump, with its whimsical, sweeping journey through 20th-century American history, Here seeks to capture that sense of transience in a more contained yet profound way – through a single, static shot in a living room, lingering over the quiet moments.

Here follows the lives of various individuals who occupy the same space over centuries, weaving together tender moments and shifting landscapes that reflect the layers of human existence, memory, and connection. Presented in a nonlinear format, it meditates on the passage of time and the history embedded within four walls, revealing how human stories endure even as the world around them transforms. I am of course talking about the original source material: Richard McGuire’s groundbreaking graphic novel released in 2014. Robert Zemeckis’ cinematic adaptation? We’ll get to that.

Adaptation is a charged topic. It’s very easy to pessimistically dismiss cinematic adaptations as mere cash grabs that prioritise profit over artistry; entertainment demagogues love trying to simplistically negotiate a copy and paste method that negates any point to their existence. However, there’s a compelling argument to be made for their creative potential. When approached thoughtfully, adaptations can breathe new life into beloved stories, introduce complex narratives to a broader audience, and embolden concepts by translating them to a new medium. 

Here is not one of those adaptations.

Here is yet another unfortunate case where the potential of such an inventive premise is completely squandered. While the use of a static camera offers a unique visual approach, novelty alone can’t compensate for the lacklustre writing. The non-linear structure has the potential to enhance the story's pacing and heighten its emotional impact, but it’s ultimately undermined by a ham-fisted script that lacks subtlety and nuance. Instead of allowing the moments to breathe or trusting the audience to find meaning, the dialogue and narrative choices often feel forced, clumsily telegraphing themes that would have been more powerful if left to linger beneath the surface. As a result, what could have been a profound exploration of time and memory becomes muddled, weighed down by its own heavy-handed storytelling.

 What makes the failure of Here so striking is that Zemeckis' earlier adaptations managed to avoid falling in these same fox traps with remarkable finesse, especially when compared to Contact (1997)—his adaptation of Carl Sagan’s revered science fiction novel. Simply put, Here lacks the subtlety Contact so effectively wielded. Where Contact trusted its audience enough to allow its concepts to unfold organically, Here instead relies on overt, clumsy dialogue and forced thematic beats with about as much tact and grace as a school bus fire. Ultimately, any potential for meditative space for the audience is betrayed by its heavy-handedness.

Here unfortunately stands as an excessively shmaltzy affair incapable of capitalising on the potential of its intriguing premise. Whilst it reaches for profundity, the execution falls flat, weighed down by a script that lacks the nuance needed for adequate thematic exploration. Initially showing some promise in its inventive static framing and frenzied non-linear structure, they are ultimately overshadowed by ham-fisted dialogue and a heavy-handed approach that prevents the film from achieving the depth it strives for. I’m rooting for you Bobby Z, please try again. 

Follow Ben on Instagram, Twitter and Letterboxd.

Here is screening in cinemas now. For tickets and more info, click here.