Presence (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A family becomes convinced they are not alone after moving into their new home in the suburbs.

Full disclosure: I was originally going to post the review of Black Bag today and The Electric State on Friday (and spoilers for that, but “state” is an apt description). But then I watched Presence and realised I had the opportunity to review two films by the same director (Steven Soderbergh) in one week. I may never get that opportunity again, so I felt I had to take it.

Spoilers for the Black Bag review, but while I liked that more than Presence, I was more impressed with Presence. It was mismarketed though. The trailers etc made it feel a bit like a horror movie, when it’s more like a family drama. Yes, it involves ghosts, but that doesn’t make it a horror. Not in the traditional sense either. You won’t be scared of the ghost, you’ll be scared of one of the human characters definitely, especially since people like him are not only prevalent in society, but thrive.

At its heart, Presence is a tale of a family suffering. A mother who is doing *something* illegal, a husband who is worried he’ll be implicated and is slowly becoming disenfranchised with the relationship, a son who is so protected by his mother that he is doomed to fail, and a daughter who feels lost and alone while in mourning of her friends. None of these characters are perfect, all are DEEPLY flawed, the mother and son more than the others, she’s incredibly dismissive of her daughter while showering her son with praise, and he tricks girls into sending him nudes and then shares them with friends. All of them feel real. The performances are great (and Lucy Liu continues to prove that Bill Murray was wrong), and their chemistry is incredible. They all feel like family members, but family members with strained relationships.

Now, onto the ending. I’ll try not to say what happened, but those who do know will know what I’m talking about. I wasn’t a fan of the last scene where it explained what the presence was. Mainly because I feel it didn’t suit that narrative. I can buy that the ghost stayed to “fulfil its purpose”, which was killing someone. I can also buy that when it did that, it ceased to exist and floated outside the house into nothingness. What I have a little trouble with, was why it waited so long afterwards. It doesn’t disappear straight after doing what it was supposed to, it hangs around. And considering the characters are shown moving out, which doesn’t happen quickly, it’s obviously a while later. So why is the presence still there? Was part of its “mission” to hang around a bit until the characters realised who it was? I get WHY, it’s so that the audience understands what happened, but it felt like there could have been a better way of doing it. Even if it just involved the presence turning towards a mirror that was at the scene of the death, and we saw the reveal then. But at the moment? It’s too “there for the audience’s sake”. Unless, was it buffering? Is that a thing for ghosts that transcend? Obviously not, that’s stupid.

There were times when Presence didn’t feel like a movie, but like a video game. Not a Turok or GTA obviously, more like What Remains Of Edith Finch or Gone Home. You walk around and witness the environment, piecing together the story as you find objects, occasionally interacting with them, with occasional moments where people do a Darth Vader on Christmas impression and sense the Presence. To be honest, I feel that may have been a better medium to tell the story because as a film, there’s a disconnect between the film and the audience. It reminded me of Here, and not in a good way, although Presence is definitely a better watch. Presence is more emotional. I was always more touched by Presence, Here not so much.

Don’t get me wrong, Presence is an impressive feat, and it’s original, which I always appreciate. But if you strip away the fact it’s from a ghost POV, it’s not that interesting. I wish I could watch this on a virtual reality device, I get the feeling that I’d really get lost in it then. But on a standard television screen? Not so much. It feels more of a curiosity than a finished product. If it was a short? I’d have loved it.

Here (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Multiple generations of couples and families inhabit the same home over the course of a century.

I knew one thing before sitting down to watch this: the CGI used to de-age Tom Hanks was not good. I have to be honest, that didn’t bother me that much. There are moments where you can see the CGI and you’re brought out of the narrative, but it doesn’t happen anywhere near as much as it could.

Here is a fascinating watch, all taking place at the exact same location over the course of hundreds of years in a non-linear fashion. The non-linear nature was a smart choice because it allows you to see how actions can influence people years later. It also allows for more interesting transitions because you can see the changes.

That leads me to the visual downside. Here doesn’t fade directly from one scene to the next, there’s also no attempt to make it look like it’s one scene. Instead, it brings up a small box on the screen which contains the same location at a different time or with different people, it’s only once you get used to that new scene that the movie moves on fully. It’s visually compelling, but there’s one major drawback. It makes it difficult to be invested in the current scene as you’re always seeing what’s next. It would be like if the “here’s what’s up next” part of television shows happened halfway through the episode instead of at the end. The constant look into the future stops you from focusing on the present, Here never exists in the moment, instead just constantly dangling the narrative carrot in front of you and waiting for you to catch up.

As much as it is cool to see it through the different time periods, there’s a definite focus on what happened after 1945; with the characters from then onwards being the ones we see the most of. To be honest, they’re the only ones needed. Yes, the look into the Lenni-Lenape couple and their courtship and burial rituals are interesting, and the William Franklin connection does come into play in the present-day scenes, but they’re not needed. They feel like narrative sorbets designed to cleanse our palate. The post-Young scenes also aren’t that interesting, seemingly just there to remind us that COVID existed, and police racism still does. If anybody watched this movie without those scenes, nobody would say “hey! This family drama set from 1945-2000 doesn’t focus on 2020 pandemics and race relations enough”. It feels like they were put in there just because Zemeckis feels this is an “important” movie, and “important” movies need to discuss themes.

I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but this needed less politics. If it focused just on the family and their life in the house, it would be a much more interesting watch. I can accept the scenes of the house being built, because the house is a character, so seeing how it was “birthed” could also tie in thematically, but we didn’t need the inventor, the wannabe flier etc. If you cut out all the fluff, it would be much shorter. That’s not too big an improvement, as timing isn’t an issue. The “here’s what’s next” nature of the visuals means that even when you’re not interested, you’re still paying attention, so it flies by much quicker than it should.

In summary, it’s an interesting art experience, not a great movie. As much as I did enjoy the narrative, it feels like it’s trying too hard to move you. It’s so heavy-handed that if it slapped you it would knock you out. As Peter Sobczynski said in his review posted on rogerebert.com “there is a point when you find yourself thinking that the only thing that Zemeckis hasn’t thrown into the mix is a needle drop of ‘Our House’ and then he proceeds to do just that”. It’s not a terrible film, but it’s not one that wouldn’t have worked better as a 20 minute short instead. Also, a simply terrible title that makes it really awkward to talk about.