By using de-aging AI tech, Robert Zemeckis's new film Here lost the plot

Robert Zemeckis's new film, Here, tells a story that spans generations — without ever moving from one spot.

The film's narrative is told in a non-linear fashion, from a fixed camera angle. Viewers see the events that occur in this single spot of land starting from the time where dinosaurs roamed, up until the family at the heart of the plot moves out of the house that is eventually built on the land.

The project serves as a mini-Forrest Gump reunion, bringing in writer Eric Roth who co-wrote the screenplay with director Zemeckis, and beloved stars Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. It made headlines for its use of a new generative artificial intelligence technology to de-age Hanks and Wright as they played both younger and older versions of their characters over the course of their respective lives.

Today on Commotion, culture critics Teri Hart, Amil Niazi and Anne T. Donahue join host Elamin Abdelmahmoud to discuss why both the novelty and nostalgia of Here may not be enough to make it a box office hit.

We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. For the full discussion, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player.

Elamin: The new movie, Here, from the director Robert Zemeckis … has a very specific quirk — maybe a quirk that can get tiresome for some people. Teri, explain it to us very briefly. What is happening in Here that makes it so unusual?

Teri: He is known for using and playing with technology in his movies…. So for Here, what he's doing is using an AI-assisted aging and de-aging process for both Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. It happened in real time on set while they were in production, so they could actually see this transformation happening while they were acting, so supposedly that's supposed to help with their body movements and understanding how one moves differently, getting on and off a couch being 17 versus being 75. 

Tom and Robin play the central couple that we followed through the decades of living in this house. That's the really high-tech stuff. And then there's a real low-tech thing that Zemeckis does in this, which is tell this story of the house and the people who have lived in the house over a century, and also what happened on the land that the house is on before the house was built— 

Elamin: But how does he do it, Teri? Tell the people.

Teri: He doesn't move the camera. He keeps the camera in one spot and one shot. And so what moves our attention are these window panes that pop up? But there are no hard cuts…. It's a unique movie experience, I would say.

Elamin: And, you know, I've never heard a critic use the word "unique" positively, because usually there's so many other words to reach for. When "unique" has to be popped up, it's kind of like, "This is the best thing I can maybe say about it." Is that what I'm hearing?

Teri: I mean, this is an experiment for sure. And for me, it didn't completely work for a lot of reasons, not just those technical reasons. But I think Zemeckis can be guilty of focusing more on the tech than he is focusing on the story, and I think that's ultimately what we see in Here. 

Elamin: You're not the only one for whom this did not work. Amil, in the '80s and '90s, Zemeckis is synonymous with blockbusters, right? But then you've got in the last maybe ten years or so, a pretty spotty track record. And then judging by the lukewarm critical and box office reception to this movie, Here, it doesn't seem like this is going to be the movie to change that. I think you had all the ingredients for a big cinema moment, and then it doesn't work. Why do you think it didn't work? 

Amil: The technical gimmicks do overshadow what is ultimately a very simple story, right? It's about the circularity of life, about how love and loss work in conjunction, about how life moves forward regardless of whether or not you're paying attention. To really make a movie that's about something so simple work, and have impact, is to pay attention to the dramatic points between the characters, the chemistry amongst the actors, and a lot of that gets lost when you're looking at the de-aging, when you're focusing on what's happening behind the window, when you're so caught up in the trappings of your gimmick. 

I think all of that loses the heart and soul that would really make a movie like this sing. I'm very swayed these days about stories like that. I'm really interested in mortality and about what it means to be here and what life is all about. And so I was primed to like this movie, and it did fall short for those reasons for me. The trappings of the tech really distracted me the whole time.

Elamin: This is going to sound indefensible, but go with me for a moment. 

Anne: I'm so scared.

Elamin: I think there's a case to be made for gimmicks, because sometimes gimmicks actually move the movies forward. I'm thinking of Avatar, for example. James Cameron did not reinvent the wheel with the story he told in Avatar, but he did spend a lot of time on the technology of it. And because of the success of Avatar, there's many more things that we can do with filmmaking that we weren't able to do before that.

And so I think when I hear a gimmick, I'm instantly resistant the same way that both Amil and Teri are. But I'm also kind of excited about the possibilities. Anne, when you watch the de-aging happen in real time in this movie, when you see Tom Hanks and Robin Wright as 20 year olds in this movie, what goes through your mind?

Anne: I say, "I hate this." I hate it so much. I think just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we must do a thing. And we can do a lot of things. It doesn't mean we have to go do those things. I think with this gimmick in particular, do we not have young actors anymore? Like, have they not done enough? Tom Hanks, we know you can act. Congratulations. Wonderful. We love this for you. Why are we not casting Colin Hanks as his younger son? It just seems, honestly, super selfish. You've had your time. Let's move it along. Age into your Clint Eastwood era, but a better person than Clint Eastwood. You know what I'm saying? Like, we don't need this. We need other things. Anything would be better.

You can listen to the full discussion from today's show on CBC Listen or on our podcast, Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud, available wherever you get your podcasts.

Panel produced by Stuart Berman.