Movie Review: Deja Vu

Deju Vu (2006) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Terry Rossio 

Starring Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, Paula Patton, Bruce Greenwood, Jim Caviezel 

Release Date November 22nd, 2006

Published November 21st, 2006 

The space time continuum seems like simply a Star Trek invention but the fact is many scientists believe time travel is possible. The physics are still unclear but theorists have begun discussing the ethics of time travel and how travelers may effect the history they are visiting. The new sci fi thriller Deja Vu is not a discussion of ethics or science but the film does take vague advantage of the concepts to craft a quick witted action vehicle perfectly suited to the talents of star Denzel Washington and director Tony Scott.

A ferry carrying American soldiers and their families to a party in New Orleans explodes moments after leaving port. Nearly five hundred people are killed including a woman named Claire Kuchaver (Paula Patton). There is something odd about Claire's death however, something that ATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is the first to notice. Claire was not killed in the explosion or the ensuing fire.

Though her body washed ashore with those of the ferry victims, her injuries indicate murder and yet her car is identified as the car that was packed with explosives and placed on the ferry. Convinced that Claire's death is the key to finding the man or men responsible for for the ferry explosion, Carlin is detemined to investigate this case.

His determination and attention to detail catches the eye of FBI agent Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer) who asks Carlin to join his unique investigative unit. Pryzwarra oversees a group of scientists headed up by Dr. Denny (Adam Goldberg) who have invented a device that allows them to peer into the past at a particular moment in time and examine that place in that time from any possible, visible angle.

There are limitations. This time twisting device can only look back four days and twelve hours. It cannot fast forward and it cannot rewind. The key is watching and observing and acting on the details gleaned from observing victims, witnesses and suspects ahead of whatever incident in which they are involved. Carlin leads the team into Claire's life and eventually finds himself chasing Claire and the terrorist through time itself.

To say much more might spoil the fun of this scientifically goofy but modestly entertaining sci fi actioner. Deja Vu toys with the time space continuum and in doing so  reveals a dichotomy in director Tony Scott's telling of the story. On the one hand he has a need to make his story plausible right down to the math. On the other hand is an open admittance of the futility of trying to keep up a realistic timeline. If you can put aside the goofiness and give up on the math, there is a compelling action flick beneath thee convoluted sci fi stuff.

Denzel Washington is a different breed of action hero. He can go hand to hand or gun to gun with the worst of villains but his true talent is as a cerebral presence. His mind cooking behind those blazing eyes is fascinating to climb inside. In Deja Vu we are right there and though he is forced by plot to be clueless at times, he is never made a fool of and in the end he carries us past any questions we might have about the confounding sci fi plot.

The key to enjoying Deja Vu is working hard on the suspension of disbelief. Though it is hard to not get caught up in trying to follow the math of the movie, the folding and unfolding of this unusual timeline, you must realize eventually that the timeline is meaningless and that even the filmmakers could not keep it all straight. Once you can put that aside (if you can put that aside) there is a surprisingly edgy and exciting action picture.

The best scene in Deja Vu is a car chase in which Denzel chases after the bad guy, played by Jesus himself Jim Caviezel, through time. As the bad guy, played by Jim Caviezel, being watched four days in the past, is about to drive out of the range of the equipment, Denzel hops into a modified hummer and chases after him in hopes of keeping his four day old trail in view.

Trust me, this makes complete sense in the movie. The car crashes are big and loud but the context of the chase gives it an extra bit of edge or your seat excitement and what follows plays back into the overall plot in clever ways.

Not alot of Deja Vu makes sense. If you can follow the movie and keep its weird math in some sense of order you will likely watch the film come apart like wet newspaper. Scrtutinize to much and the movie goes to pieces. Watch Deja Vu for the action and for Denzel Washington's always charismatic and compelling presence and you will find much to enjoy in Deja Vu.

Goofy as all get out but still quite entertaining, I'm recommending Deja Vu.

I'm recommending Deja Vu.

Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ

The Passion of the Christ (2004) 

Directed by Mel Gibson

Written by Mel Gibson, Benedict Fitzgerald 

Starring Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Sergio Rubini 

Release Date February 25th, 2004 

Published February 24th, 2004 

As controversy swirls about Mel Gibson’s intentions in writing and directing his idea of Jesus’ Passion, you could almost forget about the movie itself. That finally changes on Ash Wednesday when the film hits theaters nationwide and everyone can finally see what it is they have been talking about. What they will see is a spectacularly realized period piece, a moving and evocative piece about the ultimate in suffering. Never before has the suffering of Jesus Christ, the man many believe to be the savior of mankind, been so amazingly and brutally realized on film.

Jim Caviezal takes on the tremendous task of playing Jesus Christ. As we meet him Christ is praying in a forest seemingly unaware that his disciple Judas is at the temple betraying him. Soon Judas, with Jewish soldiers in tow, is standing before Jesus and slowly realizing his terrible mistake. After a brief scuffle during which Christ heals a soldier wounded by his disciple Peter, Jesus is arrested and beaten as he is led to the temple. There, his religious opponents, a powerful Jewish sect called the Pharisees, wait to put Jesus on trial.

Actually it’s not so much a trial as a public lynching where Jesus is once again beaten and not surprisingly found guilty, though of what crime we are uncertain. The Pharisee, led by Caiaphas, wants to put Jesus to death but their religion forbids it. However there is no such preclusion in Roman law and so Jesus is brought to the region’s Roman ruler, Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov).

Here is where the film’s most controversial element comes in. The charge of Antisemitism against the film hinges, for some, on the portrayal of Pilate. In the Passion plays of the dark ages, when Jews were blamed for Christ’s death, Pilate was played as an ineffectual wavering leader who tried to spare Christ’s life. After 1968 and the Vatican 2 council, the church made clear their official position that the Jews were not responsible and that it was Pilate, the brutal dictator, who was responsible for Christ’s persecution.

It’s very difficult to parse this fairly because both sides have a fair argument. Gibson’s film does portray Pilate as wanting to spare Jesus while a bloodthirsty mob stands by calling for his crucifixion. However, to say that no Jews, especially the Pharisee had nothing to do with it is also intellectually dishonest. Gibson does go on to portray many Jews who decry Christ’s brutal beating by Roman guards, but whether they are enough to combat the charge of Antisemitism will be up to each individual viewer. Do I think the film and Mr. Gibson are Anti-Semitic? No, but I can see where some people might.

The thrust of The Passion of The Christ is Christ’s suffering, from being punched and kicked by Jewish soldiers during his arrest and trial, to his scourging in the Roman courtyard as Pilate tries to placate the mob without crucifying Jesus, to his brutal bloody walk with the cross on his back to the mountaintop and finally his crucifixion. Some 90 minutes of almost non-stop brutal violence. So brutal that many will walk out and some will become physically ill. This is horror-film-quality violence.

This is one of the hardest films that I have ever watched, but the violence is also very compelling and moving. The scourging and whipping goes on and on and when you think it’s over, they roll Christ onto his bloodied back and continue the beating on his chest. The sequence is nine minutes long and even those with strong stomachs will be hard pressed to watch the whole thing.

Jim Caviezal deserves an Oscar nomination simply for all the punishment he takes. His performance is strongest when he is suffering and praying. His performance in scenes where he is not being bloodied is rather typical of the number of actors who have played the role before, beatific, obtuse, but innately intelligent and spiritual.

Gibson’s direction is strong and steady, his camera witnessing the action, unflinchingly embracing the brutality. Academy Award nominee Caleb Deschanel gives the film a lush and beautiful look with night scenes bathed in blue, the temple scenes swathed in a fiery orange and giving the final walk to the crucifixion bright blue in the sky and clear browns of the sand and walls of the buildings. The period details in costume and production design are flawless.

While I have a great deal of admiration for the film, the artistry of it’s production and the compelling story, I couldn’t escape a feeling of distance from the material that I can only attribute to my religious difference with Mr. Gibson. That I am not a Christian put a distance between myself and the deeply emotional connection that seems to be the intended effect of the film. For the devout, The Passion Of The Christ will be an emotional affirmation of their faith. For others, it’s a remarkable artistic experience but not a wholly satisfying one.