Deja vu

Question: If the great Denzel Washington (Inside Man) stars in a bad movie, is the movie still bad? Answer: YES. If, like my mother, you believe that any time Denzel graces the screen it’s a cause for celebration, by all means – walk don’t run to your nearest theater to check out Déjà vu. However, if you need more than a handsome face to make your movie-going experience worthwhile, I’d think twice about it.

Déjà vu reunites director Tony Scott (Man on Fire) with Washington and super-producer Jerry Bruckheimer (Con Air, The Rock). If these two are on board we at least know that a whole lot of shit is going to blow up. And it does. Washington plays ATF agent Doug Carlin, who is assigned to investigate an explosion that kills hundreds on a Naval Ship in New Orleans, during Mardi Gras. Simultaneously, he must solve the murder of Clare Kuchever (Paula Patton of Idlewild), whose death is linked to the explosion. To borrow a line from the script, if he can find Clare’s killer, he can find the person responsible for the blast. After this initial puzzle is established, we are introduced to the main concept which drives the film. The government has stumbled upon technology that allows it to not only record the past, but to manipulate it as well. As a matter of fact, they are able to send objects and people into the past in order to change the future (present). Agent Carlin is now looking at Clare’s last few days in order to uncover her killer’s identity and foil the terrorist plot.

This premise is acceptable, perhaps even intriguing, but its execution is flawed. I’m talking major plot holes and piss-poor writing. Have you ever been unable to comprehend something, not because it was so “deep” or “over your head,” but because it was just plain dumb? That’s Déjà vu! I don’t go to the movies to pick them apart, but I’m not an idiot either. Some of the things that happen in Déjà vu make absolutely no sense; it’s like the writers expect the audience to accept certain truths about this time travel technology although they directly conflict with other elements of the technology that have been presented. The implausibility level is 9 out of 10 in Déjà vu. Can the mere presence of Denzel Washington overcome these glaring flaws? Well, that depends on the viewer. Denzel will always be Denzel, but Déjà vu’s problems are bigger than him. In addition to the poor writing, the cast is wasted as the actors are relegated to one-dimensional beings that only serve to advance the plot. Jim Caviezel (Frequency, Passion of the Christ) is featured as the villain and prime suspect, while Val Kilmer (Heat, The Doors) is a federal agent assigned to the case. Neither one of these actors will be remembered for Déjà vu. If you want to see a movie that deals with concepts of time travel, fate, destiny, or government surveillance in a manner that is genuine and thought-provoking, I would suggest any one of the following: Frequency, The Butterfly Effect, Minority Report, or Donnie Darko. Despite a provocative premise, Déjà vu is ultimately disappointing, although Mr. Washington makes a valiant effort. He can’t do it alone though, and even if you put a diamond on a turd, it’s still a turd, feel me?

Casino Royale

As a fan of the James Bond franchise, I make sure to catch every new installment. Like many other fans, when I heard that Pierce Brosnan would not be reprising his role I eagerly awaited his replacement -- and like many other fans I was completely disappointed with the naming of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) as 007. Quite simply, I just didn’t think he looked the part. Normally one might think that “looks aren’t everything,” but when it comes to Bond I beg to differ. Let’s take a look at the previous Bonds, starting with the original, the irreplaceable Sean Connery. Connery was the best Bond. He was tall, dark, and handsome. He was smooth and debonair, and when he entered a room, women melted. Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, hell even the short-lived George Lazenby all looked the part, to varying degrees. But Daniel Craig? Yuck. I’ve given this whole spiel to say one thing: I stand corrected. Not only was Craig fantastic in the role, but he managed to leave a unique stamp on our favorite spy.

Casino Royale takes us back to Bond as he is first given “double-oh” status. He is passionate, reckless, and simple. He has not matured into the experienced spy we are used to seeing; he’s raw. His impulsivity frustrates M (Judi Dench of The Chronicles of Riddick, Shakespeare in Love), who tries to corral James before he compromises the mission to stop the funding of global terrorism. The title refers to the casino where James must play a high-stakes game to win the money used to finance the aforementioned terrorism. We have some familiar Bond themes: the requisite Aston Martin, martini, beautiful women, the even more beautiful locales, etc. However, something is a little different this time around. Gone are the bells and whistles and fancy gadgets, along with the cheesy commercialism that pervaded the last Bond movie, Die Another Day. Everything is darker and understated. We don't experience some of the mainstays of the franchise until the very end, like the theme music for example. Nor does Bond order his martini "shaken, not stirred." We've all heard it a million times before, and there's no need to trot out every corny Bond cliche'.

I think diehard Bond enthusiasts will be begrudgingly pleased with Casino Royale. Daniel Craig gives Bond the masculinity that Connery infused into the character, coupled with an earnest simplicity and honesty. He makes Bond seem like more than a mere spy, he's almost like an assassin! Craig is far and away the most athletic actor to portray Bond, and his body is sick. He’s no fancy-pants pretty-boy; he’s a man’s man and I like that. What he lacks in overt attractiveness he makes up for in sophisticated swagger. Call it the Jay-Z effect. Bond’s allure was always that men wanted to be him and women wanted to be with him. I'm glad to say nothing's changed.