'Here' movie review: Time's not on Tom Hanks and Robin Wright's side in soppy drama

In “Forrest Gump,” Tom Hanks ran through history. Time isn’t as kind in “Here,” where Hanks – and a chockablock narrative – seem stuck in place with nowhere to really go.

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

Join our Watch Party! Sign up to receive USA TODAY's movie and TV recommendations right in your inbox.

“Here” starts with dinosaurs running through primordial ooze, the cosmic destruction that rather apocalyptically came for them and also an ice age, then fast-forwards through indigenous people and colonial times before finally locking into its core tale. From one vantage point in their living room, we’re 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 many decades, various holiday dinners and sporadic points in history (like The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, as seen on their TV), “Here” mainly focuses on this clan’s emotional through line. Resentment 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, though the performances are strong enough that you root for them through obstacles it doesn't take a time traveler to see coming.

Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.

Zemeckis is able to hide the movie’s flaws with his snazzy storytelling device, using pop-up windows (a nod to the film’s source material) to transition between time periods and sometimes feature multiple eras in the same sequence. That’s where the film tries a little too hard, weaving in other families who lived in the house to hammer the “time flies, so make the most of it” point.

There’s a flighty flyboy (Gwilym Lee) and his posh wife (Michelle Dockery) who move in when the house is built in 1900; a pinup model (Ophelia Lovibond) and an inventor (David Fynn) who reside there in the 1930s and ‘40s; and a Black family (Nikki Amuka-Bird, Nicholas Pinnock and Cache Vanderpuye) who are 21st-century tenants. Not to mention an Indigenous couple (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum) that predated the house itself. While some pop as colorful side personalities, none are really developed in a significant way, and their appearances often disrupt the main plot.

Consequently, members of the Young family end up being supporting players: Richard and Margaret’s daughter Vanessa (Zsa Zsa Zemeckis) especially gets short shrift, 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 de-aging is off-putting. It’s all a little too unreal, but it works a little better with young-ifying Bettany and Reilly – the two main stars as teenagers is just creepy. At least their older selves won't give you nightmares later.

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