HERE

By Marc S. Sanders

I get a thrill out of being in a location occupied by someone from the past.  Last week, I toured Paramount Studios and sat on the bench that Tom Hanks did when he shot Forrest Gump.  There’s something exciting about it.  Time capsules or a recovery of an ancient burial are fascinating to me.  Just once I’d love to hold in my possession Action Comics #1, Superman’s very first appearance.  Often, items like this are preserved behind glass in museums to witness and study.

Robert Zemekis is a “What if?” director.  What if a man was marooned on a deserted island or what if you could communicate with extra-terrestrials from another galaxy?  What if live humans could interact with cartoon characters? He reunites with Hanks as well as Robin Wright for his newest film called Here.  The picture attempts to answer what precisely happened in one specific, exact location since the dawn of Earth.  

The film opens with the violent creation of the planet, complete with molten rock and falling meteors stirring about, along with an ice age, and a prehistoric period.  Then it is on to further points in history that the script from Eric Roth will occasionally return to, such as the plight of a Native American tribe and then later close to a post-Revolutionary War era where a house with a large bay window in the living room is erected and a famed historical figurehead is referred to.  We witness the activities on both sides of this living room’s bay window, and what was there before it.

There are brief views of folks living in the early twentieth century when new technology like airplanes are fresh, and eventually a Lazy Boy becomes essential to any home.  

Primarily though, there are three generations of a twentieth century family lineage that starts with Paul Bettany as a PTSD alcoholic World War II veteran, and his housewife Rose (Kelly Reilly).  Tom Hanks portrays Richard, their eldest child who aspires to become a career painter before his plans are interrupted by marrying his pregnant girlfriend, Margaret (Robin Wright).  Life, however, gets in the way of his dreams.

Finally, we are brought to a more current point with an African American family living through challenging times of police brutality and Covid.

Over the course of the whole movie, Zemeckis has you believe that his camera never moves once from this specific place.  He narrates the activities that occur in this broad scope of time with pictures within pictures.  Rectangles or squares will appear to show what happened later in life or back in the past on this specific spot and then transition the scene to that new period episode he wants us to witness.  Where the fireplace is located, a squirrel climbed the bark of a tree that was once there.  Where the sofa is now, there worked a slave laborer from the 1700s, or its where a Native American smoked a pipe before then.

If Here was any longer the novelty might have worn off.  Fortunately, the characters with the most interesting storylines are given to Bettany, Reilly, Hanks and Wright.  The challenges of living long lives raising children, dealing with job security, health, love, loss and stress are carried by them.  We grow accustomed to how the family lineage evolves, particularly with Thanksgiving dinners, Christmas photos, marriage, graduations, and children growing up.  

It helps that the latest trend of visual effects, de-aging and aging the players, works convincingly in this picture.  I attended a live conversation at the 2024 AFI Film Festival between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis, and the actor revealed that to get himself back to the age of seventeen and then a thirtysomething all the way to a man in his eighties required Zemeckis’ team to collect thousands of images and footage from the actors’ extensive careers.  Everything was then seamlessly assembled for effective performances.  I think the trickery works.  If it didn’t, then it’s likely Here would not succeed.

My one issue with the film is the glaring omission of substantial storytelling for the African American family compared to the amount of time devoted to the family who lived in this home before them.  The African American characters do not appear fleshed out enough.  They only serve to remind us of current, complicated times that we recently endured or are still living through.  Roth and Zemeckis did not go deep enough with this group, only to bookend it with an unimpactful death.

Here works like a warm blanket to snuggle up with.  I believe it is worth a second and maybe a third watch in order to catch all the little changes in details that vary as time travels through this piece of land that eventually became a living room.  The TVs and what’s on changes from the Beatles first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show to The Three Stooges to CHiPs (neat wink and nod moment here; tell me if you know what I am thinking of) and Katie Couric and so on.  The furniture gets updated.  So do the phones. What occurs across the street in front of the two-story colonial house changes.  Though we are only seeing one room during the entire running time, it’s near impossible to pinpoint what was there before from left to right and top to bottom. What’s there now and what will be there later is part of embracing the experience of Here.  However, what kept my attention is how Eric Roth and Robert Zemeckis invent ways to keep different time periods connected.  It’s relative to how Zemeckis did numerous minute and detailed face lifts to Hill Valley in his Back To The Future trilogy.

By the end of Here, there’s opportunities to relate to how many of these people end up with their long lives.  They experience all the ingredients of life through love, frustration, happiness, illness, loss, anger, sadness and eventually death.

Here is a deliberate experimental film, and for most of the picture, its attempts at modifying the stage of performance truly work.  Where it falls short is not allowing equal attention to all of the stories that enter this locale.  Then again, if the movie were to go any longer, time might have come to a mundane standstill.  It’s simply a blessing that I had just enough time being Here.

A HAUNTING IN VENICE

By Marc S. Sanders

There’s A Haunting In Venice and Hercule Poirot is on the case.  

Kenneth Branagh returns for a third time as Agatha Christie’s famed literary detective.  He also serves in the director’s chair again, and this is his best installment in the updated franchise.

The man with the exaggerated mustache is living in Venice, Italy, with the assurance of a bodyguard (Fernando Piloni) to fend off any pestering folk needing their own personal conundrums resolved.  Poirot is not interested to assist.  

On All Hallow’s Eve, he is invited to be a tag along with his American mystery novelist friend Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) at Rowena Drake’s home. A celebrity Medium known as Mrs. Reynolds is to appear and perform a seance. My first impression of Fey’s character is a loose interpretation of Dame Agatha come to life to partner up with Hercule.  She’s sort of a wink and nod to the author’s fan base.  What if Agatha and Hercule actually worked together?  This is as close as you’ll get.  Branagh and Fey work so well together.

Poirot reluctantly agrees to accept Ariadne’s invitation.  Upon arrival at the affair, the best feature of the film is introduced.  Rowena’s home is a foreboding dwelling alongside the Venetian River, and this Hallowe’en evening is turning into a dark and stormy night.  A children’s costume party is wrapping up complete with creepy puppetry, ghost story telling and apple bobbing.  Then it is time to welcome the arrival of a figure dressed in black wearing a pearl white Kabuki mask.  The children have left, and the eventual suspects of a murder mystery are all that remain in the house when the seance begins.  Mrs. Reynolds will use her talent to communicate with Rowena’s daughter who passed away a year earlier following a fall off the rooftop and into the murky river below.  

Poirot is the most skeptical of the guests as he staunchly believes only in logic, not the supernatural.  Ariadne insists that he will be amazed at the unexplainable talent at play. A well timed falling chandelier and a typewriter that seems to answer the Medium’s questions are not convincing enough for him.  

Eventually, a gruesome and shocking murder occurs.  Like most formula mysteries, everyone appears to have an alibi.  Yet, Poirot refuses to believe this crime took place by means of a supernatural element.  Even if there are unexplained noises within the home and the appearance of Rowena’s daughter turn up, there must be a more logical resolution.  

A Haunting In Venice works especially well thanks to the atmosphere of its setting.  The multi-floored and darkened home lend to the eeriness necessary for a spooky story focusing on death.  The faucet of a sink doesn’t work.  The innocence of apples takes on a nervous feeling.  Lanterns allow shadows to float within the darkness while the lightning flashes and the thunder pounds outside with choppy waters in the river. This haunted place where a young girl recently died is not somewhere I want to stay overnight.  

One suspect that especially stands out is Leopold (Jude Hill), a preteen boy with a fondness for the macabre works of Edgar Allen Poe.  Poirot suggests he turn towards Dickens.  Leopold seems much wiser than his years, as he tends to and speaks on behalf of his unwell father, Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan).  

Michelle Yeoh turns in another memorable performance permitting the strangeness of her Medium character, Mrs. Reynolds, to elevate suspense.  Poirot can choose to be doubtful.  Nevertheless, I’m convinced Mrs. Reynolds can speak to the actual dead.  

A Haunting In Venice has murder on its mind and the sudden death of one of the characters is horrifying.  I dare not spoil how it transpires.  Thankfully, this tale returns to an approach that so many classic films adopted.  You don’t need pools of blood and guts to get the hairs on the back of your neck to stand up.  It’s clear that with the approval from Agatha Christie’s estate, Branagh is well researched in what the author wanted to accomplish.  

The screenplay from Michael Green lends wonderful color to the characters, as Poirot interviews each person.  All of the performers are engaging.  This collection of actors especially works because unlike the other two Branagh films, this installment does not rely so much on stunt casting with recognizable marquee names.  For me, the who done it resolution was more challenging to solve because the actors portraying the assortment of suspects were deliberately vague, airing a sense of distrust in any one of them.  

This is a fireplace story to curl up with under a blanket and a cup of hot cider on a brisk Autumn night. The best compliment I can give A Haunting In Venice is that it’s a never-ending page turner.