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.
Troubled Productions 