Here(2024)

hgram

"I love it here." Zemeckis is back with another gimmick! Too bad he forgot to also make a good movie this time. Ophelia Lovibond!

Gamera911

It’s a gimmick but it’s a good gimmick

AdamMorgan

I get why this movie didn't get great reviews - it clearly isn't going to be for everyone. As of this writing I am a man that (gulp) recently turned fifty. A funny thing happens at that age - you start to see life differently. There is a lot of mileage in your rearview mirror, and the things you appreciate in life really start to change. Its hard to explain if you are not of that age. The movie is almost hypnotic because of its pacing, and if you happen to be at a certain stage in life, you might be in for a treat. The final scene really bring it all together beautifully. follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies

Javier SA

Don't listen to criticism. Give it a chance

darksidelsd

Not very interested and pretty boring. The general idea was kinda cool though. Incredibly bad looking AI was used in this movie. I just couldn't stand it at all because you'd notice it throughout. If you want something for going to sleep: this is perfect.

siggi963

I cannot say, that this movie is bad, but it nonetheless feels more like a proof of concept. Zemeckis proofs, that a movie can be made with a fixed camera in one spot with no zoom. The story goes from a prehistoric era until today and follows the events that happened on that spot. This spot happens to be from around 1900 to today the living room of a house. Different people live and die here. The concept is interesting and the actors are excellent. Only, given that there is no real story but just an observation of what happens, the novelty of the concept becomes a bit worn off by the end of the movie. Still, a movie worth watching where many people will certainly recognise something of themselves or their families, would one observe them in their living rooms.

miguelreina

With a certain experimental tone, even if it is only by keeping the camera static for almost the entire film, this look at the cycle of life through a family and a house and its inhabitants, before and after being inhabited, is a corny and sentimental story that doesn't achieve its objectives. By introducing digital effects in the transformation of the characters, it ends up depriving them of the humanity it tries to reflect, which is presented as one of the main contradictions of the proposal. And in the end is as cheesy as it is emotional, but completely unbalanced in the development.

zxki

Another AI experiment and I'm not expecting them to stop anytime soon. Using it like this seems effective but creating such a meaningful movie and then making it uncanny is bizarre. The eyes honestly look dead and take me far from 'here'. I've always thought about the past/present/future memories a single piece of earth holds. However, I would have preferred a linear timeline. Also, does Robert Zemeckis have black friends? I'm sure you could get better writing from AI. I loved the dark humour though. As impressive as some of it gets, an almost 2 hour long movie with constant and obvious transitions is nauseating. I don't see any Oscars in sight.

corzar76

Enjoyed it. Something different and interesting.

guzzlima

The passage of time and the cycle of life unfold from a specific space, where stories intertwine over the years. The filming is static, providing a single perspective from which everything happens. The main narrative arc is wonderful and very engaging. The editing excels at connecting different stories through common elements, creating multiple story lines and interconnected moments. However, at times this formula can seem repetitive and tiresome; some scenes could be extended to increase involvement. However, this does not detract from the beauty and originality of the film.

SpiderJerusalemInTheMountains

"I love it here" sums it all up for me, and was what I needed at the end. This was a fun movie, a bit slow and confusing with the quick changes and large cast, especially with multiple aged people, but the story tracks and has acceptable closure. My largest complaint is that you while Tom Hanks and Robin Wright are in the movie much of the time, we never once see their actual faces, and the CGI really annoyed me (plus when you hire actors to play the parents of the 2 main character's, and both the "parents" are younger than the "children", CGI is not your answer. That said, the acting was phenomenal.

Elbastardo2

totally loved this movie... refreshing

durack

I'm a sucker for these time-travel types of movies. This one hit the spot. The best of these movies have a single character who is the time traveller. In this movie, it's that one spot of land. That was a first (for me). Then there's the single camera view we get to observe everything that happens on that piece of land. No other angle. It's such a brilliant idea. This is definitely a 10/10. I felt sad and emotional when the movie ended. Because I will never feel like this again when I watch this another time.

The_Argentinian

I'm surprised I liked it considering I thought the "gimmick" would get old fast. I was invested in these characters' lives even though there isn't much depth to most of them. The ending felt a bit sudden, though. A nice experiment.

r96sk

'Here' is one of the most original movies that I have personally seen, I can't say I've watched one that does anything like this. To tell such a story from (basically) a single camera angle is a brave choice, but it is one that Robert Zemeckis 'amp; Co. nail tremendously. I loved it. I would've predicted some slow moments and that the sole vantage point might've gotten repetitive/boring, happily neither of those two things occurred. There are plenty of events that keep it all interesting and the unique angle ensures freshness. Those on the cast are, of course, helpful too. Tom Hanks is as great as always, Robin Wright is also very good. Paul Bettany is, though, the one that stood out most to me, he is excellent at every moment. His character is most attached to all the more serious parts of this, most notably alongside Kelly Reilly's Rose. I saw this at the cinema as part of a double bill with Pablo Larraín's 'Maria'; randomly chosen due to the showtimes matching up with my schedule, but what a great four hours or so in front of the big screen it turned out to be. Quality viewing!

morphinapg

I think the movie would have been better if played more chronologically, maybe with some flashbacks but not scattered all over the place the way it was. It's still a good movie, I just think the all over the place nature of it brought it down a notch.

Copeland1994

On one hand I want to love this movie, but the next its completely meh. Overall, the concept is what is truly unique and recommendable, but the plot it clunky, slow, and confusing to follow at times. Rating: 2.5/5 - 70% - Worth Watching

Nickg24

Enjoyed it more than I thought i initially would.It has its flaws but redeems itself with a couple of heartfelt moments.

jarvis-5251579

This was not for everyone! Technically clever but with weak characters and story.

nljs

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Mindless_City23

This movie had a few things going for it, but overall it was a disappointment. It didn't seem like there was enough of an emotional investment with so many characters through so many time periods. Overall the movie is a lot bleaker than it needs to be too. One major highlight was the de-aging technology used. It was pretty convincing at times.

chris337

Having already digested Richard McGuire's "Here" in the original 6 page strip and the 2014 graphic novel, I was aware of the visual concept of a static shot in location, through time. This was a great recreation in the media of moving pictures, of a uniquely still original narrative. I feel that some familiarity with the 1989 original strip would act as an indication of the viewers likelihood of accepting the locked shot that comprises the length of the film. It is this stillness that seems to be the root cause of many to dislike the work, unfairly in my opinion. (Digital ageing / deaging is a whole different subject, alongside CGI and for another time)

threespoons

“Here” presents a fascinating narrative, intertwining various moments in history within a single setting. As the camera remains fixed, viewers witness the evolution of this location, from untouched landscapes inhabited by Native Americans to the construction of a colonial home and, eventually, a modern house. This artistic choice creates an intriguing backdrop for a series of vignettes that explore the human condition across generations. Despite this innovative approach, the film’s storytelling may feel distant due to the static nature of its presentation. The characters, restricted by the film’s technical constraints, sometimes struggle to resonate, feeling more like pieces in a visual tableau than fully realized individuals. “Here” is a cinematic experiment that will likely appeal to those who appreciate films that challenge traditional narrative forms. Fans of movies like “Phonebooth” or “Timecode,” which also experiment with time and space within a confined setting, may find “Here” to be a rewarding watch.

Saint Pauly

Like the seasonal flu: monotonous, it seems to go on forever, and there's no point to it. As a fan of story-driven films, this end-of-year project for juniors in CGI school does nothing for me except prove the timelessness of clichés.

Johnny.Lumsden

Not really my cup of tea, but a decently made emotional film about the circle of life. It was an interestingly well made movie where it takes place in one setting. It follows the story of a family but more so a house that has seen many families come and go and grow and go through the circle of life that brings troubles and joy from literally the beginning of time to the current year 2024 it was a bit hard to follow at the beginning and a little bit troubling to figure out but once you did, it was a nice easy pace movie however it sort of made me sad and depressed the whole time because it harped a little bit too much on the downfalls of life and it makes you feel old and that time is going by too fast and you need to make the most of it now. Also the acting seemed a bit lack luster.

PapaKicks

Oof. What a dud. The gimmick is just that. A gimmick. It's not enough to keep the film interesting after the first 20 minutes. Which leaves the plot and acting to carry the rest of the movie. Unfortunately the acting is... bland... but at the same time over the top. It's like watching a stage play where everyone is emphasizing their dialogue for the audiences benefit even though it isn't how they would speak in real life. But unlike a good play, the dialogue is trivial and boring. And with Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, and Paul Bettany taking the leads, you know it wasn't bad actors. That falls firmly on the director who made a poor choice for how he wanted them to act. Pretty much every issue with this movie falls on the director. Perhaps it's just a flawed concept from the start. But I feel like in someone else's hands, a much better story and movie could have been made here. I don't recommend this film to anyone at all. If there is an audience for this film, I don't know who it would be. Hard pass.

ArielRodriguez

I really hated the AI work on Tom Hanks and Patricia Arquette's faces to portray them younger. The plot is interesting. The script is not great, but it is adequate.

social.gi

A place is not something static, but a "living" entity that adapts and transforms itself according to who passes by...

johndrinkwater

I could not roll my eyes harder at the "pre"-history of the plot where the house was built. Reilly 'amp; Bettany do outstanding performances, but I didnt think much of the rest. Maybe just the lazyboy couple.