Deja Vu

Thriller/Suspense, Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Starring Denzel Washington, and Val Kilmer

Story: As a thriller/suspense film, Deja Vu is indeed a well-crafted who-dunnit romp. The protagonist's journey is well-motivated and easy to empathize with--mainly because the inciting incident occurs very early in the film.

As a sci-fi/fantasy, this film requires an affinity for techno-speak and a mind well-attuned to comprehending temporal paradoxes and spatial conundrums.

Unfortunately, unless you like both thrillers and science-fiction films, you may find it difficult to track what's going on--particularly if you don't pay careful attention to every little detail and line of dialog.

Inciting Incident: 10
Building Tension: 6
Protagonist Empathy: 7
Protagonist Growth: 3
Nemesis Strength: 6
Final Climax: 7
Dialog: 6
Surprise Ending: 5

Acting: Denzel Washington is always fun to watch on the screen. He's just a likable guy--somebody you wouldn't mind inviting over for dinner and a glass of wine. In Deja Vu, he succeeds in making you care about his deep desire to solve this crime. His attraction to the already-dead leading lady is memorable and touching, and even though you don't know how it's going to happen, you hope that somehow he can find a way to get together with her.

Character Believability: 9
Performance Memorability: 6

Settings: New Orleans is a great location to make a movie. It has charm and an unusual feeling. I actually lived there for a year, and I must say I enjoyed being there for the most part. Fortunately, we moved to California 4 days before the Katrina disaster--talk about good timing. It was especially fun seeing places in the movie that I recognized.

All of the locations were well chosen and appropriate for their function in the story. I especially liked the remote camp where the nemesis tried to kill the leading lady--it was very lonely and creepy.

Cinematography: The cinematography was excellent, though it wasn't breathtaking. Especially memorable were the scenes of huge pyrotechnics followed by bodies and cars falling into the Mississippi River, and the chase scene with the one of the hero's eyes looking into the past while his other eye saw the present.

Sound: The sound was well done, but nothing worthy of merit or recognition.

Music: The music was dramatic and intense, but not memorable. I think the intensity of the music was appropriate, however, given the nature of the disaster depicted in the film.

Scoring
Overall Story Score: 6 x 3 = 18
Overall Acting Score: 8 x 2 = 16
Overall Settings Score: 7
Overall Cinematography: 7
Overall Sound Score: 5
Overall Music Score: 5

Total Score: 6.4

Why another critic?

So why do we need yet another movie critic? Quite frankly, I think somebody needs to critique the critics. That's because too many of them seem to evaluate movie's from a purely subjective point-of-view, and that really doesn't do much good for anyone. I mean, what good is their subjective opinion, unless you happen to think and feel just like they do? No, in order for a critique to be of value, it needs to be as objective as possible so that each person can do their own objective-to-subjective mapping.

As a simple illustration of this basic idea, let's say I turn the hot water on and put my hand under the faucet. I immediately pull my hand out and scream "Ouch! That's hot!" You at first believe my "critique," but decide to touch the flow yourself, at which time you say "Hey, that's not hot!" From that moment on, you secretly (or not so secretly) believe that my critiquing abilities are dull at best. Now, in a world of more useful critiquing, I would instead give you an objective view of the water, telling you that my temperature measurement is 102 degree Fahrenheit. Then you could decide for yourself if the water was hot or not. After all, you may have thick leathery alligator skin, and I may have the skin of a man who doesn't know the meaning of physical labor. I think you get my point.

Another complaint I have about most movie critics is that they often compare apples with oranges, paying little if any attention to a film's genre and budget. Action films should be evaluated in terms of what makes a good action film, and dramas should be critiqued by the standards of a good drama film, etc. Likewise, a small-budget film should not be held to the same production standards as a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster.

Each week I will endeavor to objectively critique one or more movies, in accordance with the film's genre and budget, providing a brief analysis and objective scoring of the story, acting, settings, cinematography, sound, and music.

This is the way I think critiquing should be done.