New Tom Hanks movie is a little too unreal

On By Littum

game

In “Forrest Gump” Tom Hanks ran through the story. Time isn’t so kind in “Here,” where Hanks — and a chockablock narrative — seem stuck with nowhere to go.

“Gump” fans will dig the band back together, with Hanks and co-star Robin Wright reunited with director Robert Zemeckis and his co-writer Eric Roth. And “Here” (★★ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday) is a fascinating cinematic experiment that uses a fixed camera position to show how life and people change over millions of years, from prehistoric to modern time. But this overly sentimental, unnecessarily serious journey based on Richard McGuire’s graphic novel is more gimmick than substance, one overflowing with moments and characters that ultimately prove unfulfilling.

Join our Watch Party! Sign up to receive USA TODAY’s movie and TV recommendations straight to your inbox.

“Here” starts with dinosaurs running through primordial noise, the cosmic destruction that rather apocalyptically came upon them, and also an ice age, then fast forwards through indigenous peoples and the colonial era before finally locking into its core narrative. From a vantage point in their living room, we are introduced to troubled World War II veteran Al Young (Paul Bettany) and housewife Rose (Kelly Reilly) in the 1940s, and later their artistic son Richard (Tom Hanks). Richard meets and falls for Margaret (Wright), and when they get pregnant as teenagers, have a baby and get married, Margaret moves in.

Over the course of many decades, various holiday dinners and sporadic points in history (like The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, as seen on their TV), “Here” focuses mainly on the emotional trajectories of this clan. Anger builds in Margaret when Richard’s lack of ambition means staying in a house she never feels is hers. Richard and Al are constantly worried about money, while Margaret and Rose miss out on their own dreams. It’s not exactly uplifting stuff, although the performances are strong enough to have you rooting for them through obstacles, it doesn’t take a time traveler to see that coming.

Zemeckis is able to hide the film’s flaws with his clever narrative device of using pop-ups (a nod to the film’s source material) to switch between time periods and sometimes having multiple eras in the same sequence. This is where the film tries a little too hard, weaving in other families who lived in the house to hammer home the “time flies so make the most of it” point.

There is a flighty flying boy (Gwilym Lee) and his classy wife (Michelle Dockery) who move in as the house was built in 1900; a pinup model (Ophelia Lovibond) and an inventor (David Fynn) who live there in the 1930s and 40s; and a black family (Nikki Amuka-Bird, Nicholas Pinnock and Cache Vanderpuye) who are tenants in the 21st century. Not to mention a native couple (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum) who preceded the house itself. While some appear as colorful side characters, none are really developed in a significant way, and their appearances often interfere with the main plot.

As a result, members of the Young family end up as supporting players: Richard and Margaret’s daughter Vanessa (Zsa Zsa Zemeckis) becomes especially short-lived, a girl who’s into Jazzercise and law, and that’s pretty much it. Or maybe we can chalk it up to her not spending much time in the living room.

While the “Gump” reunion of Hanks and Wright is fine, their digital annihilation is off-putting. It’s all a little too surreal, but it works a little better with the youth-affirming Bettany and Reilly – the two main stars as teenagers are just creepy. At least their older selves won’t give you nightmares later.

The meandering film’s ambition and originality is admirable, though, and it has its enjoyably wacky aspects, such as Benjamin Franklin’s illegitimate son owning the huge colonial across the street. Quite a few times you’d rather be there than “Here.”