Great, great movie - almost. Everything about it is good, until you get to the time travel science. Similar to The Terminator they get it all wrong. That aside, it works nicely and is quite interesting. Scott's traditional rapid-fire editing and grainy style are shockingly absent. The cast is good, the effects are good, the pacing is great. Definately recommended. A-

D as you can read in my review for the site.

http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Meyer/ ... 001002.php

I have mixed feelings. It's well-made, especially the visual style, and mostly enjoyable, but I never became truly involved in the central mystery and thought Denzel Washington was dull as dishwater. I s'pose I'll give it a generous B-.

I definitely enjoyed it. It was intelligent without being pretentious. It was entertaining without being ridiculous. It was layered without being confusing. Thankfully, Tony Scott tones down the mind-numbing camerawork for this movie and presents it fairly straightforward. Denzel Washington is his usual appealing self. Paula Patton, the only good thing about Idlewild, further delivers on the promise she showed in that film. Supporting performances are solid. Solid thriller. B

i rather enjoyed it, too. kinda silly in some places, few things that didnt make much sense, and i doubt if i'll ever watch it again, or remember it in six months, but it definitely came out much tighter and more intelligently than i'd've guessed from the trailers. good job.

The one thing I can always count on when going to see a Jerry Bruckheimer film is that it will be fun and entertaining and that is exactly what Deja Vu is. The pace is unrelenting and I love Tony Scott's style of using different camera angles to show a scene. Denzel is great as usual with a great supporting cast. I loved the whole time travel element and if it is possible to change the past. All in all one of the most enjoyable films of the year.

A


P.S. - I really needed a good action/thriller after being totally disappointed and bored with with Casino Royale last week.

Somewhat underwhelming, especially after Tony Scott's last two crackerjack stunners. The movie was engaging but felt like it was building up to a much more interesting ending then the by-the-numbers climax. I wasn't as bothered by the questionable logic in the last bit as much as I was dissapointed by it's mediocrity. C+

Man On Fire was better, but i still enjoyed it, though hard to rate as i was very drunk for the first half of the film.

I shouldn't be allowed three glasses of wine at dinner again for awhile.

Not better than Man on Fire, but still quite good.

B+

I haven't seen Deja Vu- only some trailers. It seems kind of odd that this movie came out right after The Fountain- another time-travel/deja vu-esque film. Thoughts?

They're entirely different, even in their presentation of time travel.

I havent seen this yet, but was Val Kilmer in the movie a lot? or was he just really the only other big name so they gave him 2nd billing.

He was probably the third main character (after Denzel and Paula Patton) for the first two thirds of the film, but didn't have any presence in the last act. Maybe that's one of the reasons it was the weakest.

B+

It's pretty enjoyable. It's the rare place where a Jerry Bruckheimer-produced film is coupled with an intelligent, twisty script.

B-

It's a very entertaining and solid thriller until the end, hovering at about a B+ until that point. But seriously, the last quarter of this film made 0 sense.

[spoil]First of all, at the beginning of the film they find Claire dead in the water without fingers, dumped there at least 2 hours before the explosion. Then Denzel goes to her house and finds the blood all over the room, and later he finds the ambulance in the shack, all of these latter points to past-Denzel saving Claire from the first death, but being dead in the water for 2 hours means that never happened, it was impossible for her to be saved. First point says Denzel didn't save her, second ones do... blech.

Second of all, the blood in the room indicated from the beginning that Denzel had made it to the past and conversed with Claire... and yet the boat still blows up originally? Even at the end when he saves the boat, by doing that he should've stopped himself from ever travelling to the past, and that would create a paradox. Also Caviezel's statements, how does he know about Denzel, it is never clear on his character how the hell that worked, they never followed through with it. The entire thing makes no sense at all.

I would've made the ending like this:

Denzel does all the jazz in Claire's apartment, bloodies the towels, etc., everything going to plan as seen in the beginning of the movie. He makes it to the ferrie, but he discovers he can't change the past, and it blows up anyways. Future Denzel hides for the next 4 days as original Denzel goes through the investigation, and reappears after the teleport with philosophical points on his mind. This is all assuming Claire being dead in the water point is dropped by the way, she just blew up on the ferrie originally, bound in her car or something.[/spoil]

It appears the writers were content with making an entertaining movie, but forgot to include any logic in their confounding time travel plot.

Well, if Deja Vu isn't the poor man's Fountain...

A mechanical, short-term riff of the same spiritual, long-term vibe. It's the B-version of the A-story. Time travel for the masses or Mass Time Transit (MTT) in the stead of your own good old car that takes you here now. Or whenever.

One thing's for sure -- it sure was nice to see Jesus playing the bad guy for once. And not just any bad guy, but a divinely inspired terrorist, no less!

And then Val Kilmer is particularily effective simply because he's unexpectedly in a supporting role.

Tony Scott has now got three great movies in a row with Man on Fire, Domino, and now Deja Vu -- though he's directed more than that many classic movies in his day, that's the best continuous streak of his career by my count. The guy can tell a story, and in the case of Deja Vu it's an interesting telling, based on a strict plot structure, that gets bent and bruised as it careens to it's foregone conclusion...

Nice.

6 out of 5.

D

What a load of shit!

Very entertaining movie but a bit of a letdown after Scotts last two masterpieces.

1. Man on Fire - A+
2. Domino - A
3. Deja Vu - B+

B-


A let-down and one of Tony Scott's worst efforts (I usually like him quite a lot). I thought Man on Fire was very solid and Domino was great and hugely underrated, but this one just left me underwehelmed. It IS decent on its own, but I had several problems with it. The whole time travel logic of course doesn't work, but I didn't expect it to either. However, what I did expect was some solid action and entertainment. There was really little to no action in the entire film up until the very end. It felt more like a CSI episode to me than a Tony Scott action-thriller. Jim Caviezel delivered a really lame villain with lame motives and Denzel Washington pretty much sleepwalked through the entire movie and Kilmer was underused as well. I was never bored, but it felt like was waiting all the time for something big to happen and it simply never came...

That pretty much exactly reflects my thoughts on the film as well.

B. The ending was way too damn happy.

Wow, Im sorry I missed this one in theaters. I found this to be a very well made thriller with a toned down Scott (Very good, Domino was pretty average and overdone) and a great cast.

Sure the final fight at the end was weak, but I really liked how it ended.

I think the coolest thing about it is that even if the past is changed, no one will ever no it.

Oh my grade is an A-

The end made no sense, but it entertained me.
B+