Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

jm10701 How do I get it all into just 1000 words? Having read some negative reviews before watching the movie, I set out to prove them wrong. I can't. This is a TERRIBLE movie! I'll just list a few of its most glaring flaws:(1) The dialog is about half in unintelligible English, half in Armenian; the DVD subtitles translate Armenian into English but leave us to struggle alone through mumbled English and VERY heavily accented and garbled Armenglish; the closed captions do the opposite, giving the English dialog ONLY; all through the movie I had to switch back and forth between subtitles and closed captions as the characters switched between Armenian and English; it was infuriating.(2) ALL of the dialog is stilted, pretentious, moronic crap, but EVEN WORSE than the dialog is the mind-bogglingly stupid pseudo-mythological narration read by poor Peter Coyote, who must be desperate for work.(3) In some scenes, extremely shallow depth of field and oblique angles caused the camera to have to shift focus constantly, which completely ruined whatever was going on and gave me a headache; it was most noticeable when Will was writing an email, but the focus shifting happened pretty often; maybe it was supposed to be artistic, but it was just distracting.(4) Ben Foster is TERRIBLY - and I do mean TERRIBLY - miscast in this movie, and he seems to be angry about it all the way through. I have never seen such obvious discomfort IN EVERY SCENE from any actor in any movie. It's like watching him sulk for two hours. Besides making the whole movie irritating, his extreme discomfort kills whatever chemistry there is supposed to be between his Will and Lubna Azabal's Gadarine.(5) Braden King is an untalented narcissist. He should NEVER be allowed to make another movie! Maybe he can get a job at Burger King in some small town I'll never have to visit.

Armand at first sigh, a film about nothing. in fact, a mirror. or a trip. or a basket of questions. a poem. and frame of a meeting. the gorgeous images from Armenia, the faces and words of characters, the Romanian "Bun e vinul ghiurghiuliu" in a bus from Caucasus are only ingredients. but the subject of film is importance of roots. discover of sense. silence as aura. and delicate steps of self image. a film about birth of miracle. and about sparkles of its cell. nothing else. nothing more. so, all common pieces are different. the man in a strange country in search of pure freedom. a woman who describes her as result of her pictures. an Armenian family. few friends. and the shadow of gestures. essence of story - the church. the window as stick. the priest in Holy Liturgy. the nuns. and the solitude of stranger far by his guide.

bitashafipour I'm not a harsh critique when it comes to slow, beautifully shot romantic films and I grew up with Iranian cinema and the utterly slow movies of Abbas Kiarostami, Majid Majidi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf, but 'Here' is slow for no good philosophical, metaphysical, spiritual, or even sensual reason. The cinematography is lovely, and the production value is good, but the script could have had a couple of rewrites. The acting is okay and what makes it okay is not the work of the actors but the weakness of the script and the lack of enough tension or conflict for the actors to deliver their best performance possible. Despite the slowness and the rawness of the script, I did like the setting, Armenia, which we don't get to see very often in non- Armenian cinema, and how life is like there.

Turfseer 'Here' is the brainchild of Braden King, mainly known for prior documentaries and music videos. With 'Here', King decided to create the first American-Armenian joint film venture. Despite the script's low commercial appeal, he managed to conscript the well-known American film actor for his project, Ben Foster, and obtain almost $1.5 million in financing.According to King, shooting in Armenia was a logistical nightmare, as he had to contend with a myriad of bureaucratic obstacles coupled with the technical limitations of the Armenian film industry. Nonetheless, as King related in a recent interview, working with the Armenian people was a great experience. 'Here' is mainly worthwhile to see the beautiful Armenian landscape, which few Americans are privy to, due to the dearth of Armenian films released in the U.S.As for King's story, sad to say it's not all that exciting, quite lugubrious and a tad bit self-indulgent. It's about an American internet satellite map cartographer, Will Shepard (Ben Foster), who meets Gadarine Nazarian (Lubna Azabal), a free-spirited Armenian photographer. While Will maps the Armennian countryside, Gadarine. a photographer, walks around taking pictures. They travel around in an SUV and eventually a romance develops. Azabal, however, is not from Armenia at all. She's of Moroccan and Belgium descent, and memorized all the Armenian parts of her dialogue. To me it sounded perfectly authentic but I read a poster from Armenia on the internet, who claimed her accent was "laughable". That leads me to wonder why King failed to cast an Armenian actress in the role, despite Azabal's talents. Part of the 'Here' script's problem is that it takes about an hour before any meaningful conflict develops between the couple as well as conflict in the external story. There is a mildly interesting section where Will and Gadarine visit the family of an old high school friend of Gardarine's, but like most of the film, goes on for way too long (the best thing about this scene is that we do learn that many Armenians DO like vodka!).Another interesting but questionably effective scene is when Will and Gadarine are stopped by border guards at a border crossing into the disputed territory of Karabakh. Will is depicted as a character with quite a bit of repressed anger, but shows little common sense, when he picks a fight with the border guards. It's only through Gadarine's intervention that prevents the couple from being arrested or suffering an even worse fate. According to King, the scene was originally written with Gadarine bribing the lead soldier. Armenian authorities insisted that King change the script as they conceded it was realistic to depict police officers being corrupt in Armenia, but not soldiers. King ended up agreeing to make the change, as in the end, he was advised that the turning down of the bribe in this context, was wholly realistic!The romance between the couple follows the usual program with a scene of initial intimacy (caressing while partly nude in a swimming spot off the beaten track), full score passion inside the car, an eventual argument and final reconciliation. Garadine proves to be a much more interesting character than Will, as she must contend with the disapproval of her family, as they are unhappy with her traveling and spurning Armenian tradition (she's just a little too liberal for such a conservative place as Armenia). Will is much more problematic because he's basically unlikeable. Not only does he end up failing in his mapping project but there's very little interesting about him. King has the idea that if you turn your main character into an angst ridden sad sack, that's enough to pull the audience in. Unfortunately, it is not.In addition to the main story, King punctuates his narrative with some weird effects done to a collection of still images. Over these images, a narrator opines, with a succession of cryptic poems. When asked about the still images and the poetry, King remarked that it had something to do with the process of film itself. I didn't actually understand what these scenes meant nor could I fathom Mr. King's explanation. I really wanted 'Here' to move faster. The romance between the principals meandered just like the entire film. The events that occurred were unexceptional and it was almost as if we were watching a slow-paced documentary. I realize that Mr. King was attempting to present some kind of 'slice of life', but Mr. Foster's character, was just too angry, to be engaging. See 'Here' for a glimpse into both the people and landscapes of Armenia. As for the drama, hopefully the film's creator will choose a much less ordinary and compact story, on his next go-round.