Two Thumbs Up for "Deja Vu"
Wow! Once in a while Hollywood does it right. Deja Vu, starring Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, Paula Patton, and James Cazaviel is four star.The cinematography is fantastic. The dialouge is fresh and the movie is full of characters that you care about. Good action without overdoing it. They build up tension instead of immediately going from one scene of violence to another. Without giving anything away, the plot is so nuanced that The Lady and I left thinking there were a couple of holes in the story, but on further reflection and research we realized that the directors knew what they were doing and the holes actually tell an extra story not explicitly revealed in the movie. Fascinating.
In addition to the pluses of the movie listed above, I thought the movie handled faith in God in a positive light without beating people over the head with it. Cazaviel makes a chilling villian in his few scenes. It is clear he does not want to be type-cast.
Bruckhiemer has done it again. If you want to see a good action-mystery-thriller with great acting and a positive tone, I'd reccommend "Deja Vu". I might even experience it again sometime.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Sunday, December 03, 2006
4 Comments:
I think I remember hearing sometime ago that Denzel Washington is/was a preacher. Is that correct?
His dad is a preacher. What I think happened is that some of the Christians in Hollywood decided to work together on this project. I have not heard that, but some of their past work indicates that.
From the pluggedinonline movie review:
It's too bad, then, that Bruckheimer and Scott's approach to the manipulative opening sequence in which they kill a boatload of heroic, innocent and defenseless folks is so obvious, insulting and ineffective. The pair just can't seem to resist the urge to dial everything up to 11 on the intensity meter. (How they agreed to "settle" for a PG-13, I'll never know.) Their film might have moved beyond mere nail-biter to genuinely compelling without its over-the-top-to-the-point-of-feeling-cartoonish violence. And its voyeuristic shot of Patton nude. And the inclusion of Caviezel as an incomprehensibly whacked-out terrorist instead of a villain with motivations that might actually make some kind of sense. And the nagging feeling that we've already seen all this somewhere before. Haven't we?
I won't be wasting my money watching this trash, no matter how may "Christians" helped make it.
Why, because of a paragraph of critisim that is wrong?
The opening scene is very effective, and they show very little blood and gore.
Patton nude? I don't remember that one. They showed her in the shower at angles where stuff was hidden, and then the lady scientist objected to what was going on the guys hung their heads in shame a bit and then used the project to view something else. The whole scence was a condemnation of voyerism, even with the excuse that they were on a "stakeout" to catch a mass murderer. The scene taught a moral the exact opposite of what that lying review implies.
You may want to wrap yourself in a cloak of being too righteous to watch it, but it is your loss. The movie portrays Christianity in a very positive light. From what I have seen of your attitude, it portrays Christianity in a better light than you do.
Post a Comment
<< Home