
AFI Fest Review: Canada’s Oscar Entry ‘Universal Language’ is Imaginative and Unique
October 26, 2024
WBTV Group Reveals Exciting Fall Line-up!
October 26, 2024Attempting to tell the story of one place over a period of centuries is certainly a bold undertaking. The cinematic adaptation of Richard McGuire’s comic strip turned graphic novel Here starts in the age of dinosaurs and ends just after COVID, though those two moments in time don’t come just at the beginning and the end. An undeniably intriguing concept is brought to somewhat effective life in Robert Zemeckis’ film, which bites off considerably more than it can chew and resultingly isn’t able to fully deliver on its promise.
The living room of a single house is the setting for the entirety of this film, though it’s not a house in the age of dinosaurs and when Native Americans first wander the land. It’s built and occupied by a variety of people, including a military veteran, an aviator whose wife is scared to fly, a recliner inventor and his very supportive model wife, a Black couple who teach their son what to do if he’s ever pulled over by a police officer, and a young couple who spend much of their lives in a home they never planned to stay in but need to as a result of circumstances beyond their control.
This film is being trumpeted as a reunion thirty years in the making of many people involved in the Oscar-winning Best Picture Forrest Gump. Zemeckis is joined by co-screenwriter Eric Roth, cinematographer Don Burgess, composer Alan Silvestri, and stars Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. That the latter two receive top billing is no accident given their critical participation in this film, but given that they first appear as teenagers, the de-aging technology applied to make them believably five decades younger proves more distracting than anything. Their narrative is the most pronounced throughout the film but not necessarily the most interesting, and watching them appear in an altered way detracts from a plotline that would like have worked just as well with younger actors playing their younger selves.
In keeping with the inspiration of its source material, this film is presented very much out of order, which proves to be a dizzying experience. Frames appear on screen to show parts of the room changing while others remain the same, giving a preview into what audiences might see next but often moving on before fully loading into that scene. The non-chronological presentation doesn’t serve the narrative well since it’s hard to keep up with what’s going on and when events are taking place, with certain segments offering far too brief a peak into a story that would surely have been interesting if given the chance to play itself out before being traded for something else.
This film includes a stacked ensemble cast that’s almost not necessary for the scale of their roles. Hanks, Wright, Paul Bettany, and Kelly Reilly get the most screentime and do construct a believable family unit, even if the need for all four to play the parts throughout their entire lives does them a disservice. Gwilym Lee and Michelle Dockery have a worthwhile period dynamic but get precious little screentime, while Nicholas Pinnock and Nikki Amuka-Bird have disappointingly little to do. The standouts are, without question, David Fynn and Ophelia Lovibond as the only couple who, to their advantage, encounter no strife and instead completely support each other’s ambitions and dreams. That furniture figures heavily into their happiness is an added bonus.
The construction of this film is noteworthy and commendable even if it doesn’t always work, and it’s most mesmerizing as an examination of the way space works and how each minute change adds so much meaning and character. The transformation of couches, curtains, floors, and technology speak almost louder than the dialogue, and there’s much to contemplate just by looking at the backgrounds. Observing the landscape before the construction of the house feels like a stretch that isn’t quite as potent or productive, and some of the storylines feel too needlessly dramatic and hokey. Silvestri’s score is whimsical and triumphant, signaling the bold achievement this film wants to be. In the end, this inarguably ambitious effort yields mixed results, approaching the endgame it seeks but not quite reaching it.
Movie Rating: 6/10
Awards Buzz: It’s fair to assume that this take will be among the more positive readings of the film, which should disqualify it from most major awards contests. Its technical elements, however, may still be in play. Its score and visual effects will alternately please and irritate some, but its best bet is for the facet that anchors everything: production design.