Deja Vu

The thought of time travel in film rattles my brain. It's never as simple as John Smith goes back in time and explores. There are dire consequences and horrific consequences for each and every action!!! Cue intense, foreboding music! When handled correctly though -- or as much as my feeble mind can grasp -- it can be a gem, like 2006's Deja Vu.

It's Fat Tuesday in New Orleans when late in the morning the Canal Street Ferry explodes in a fiery blast that claims 500-plus lives. There is little doubt the attack was the work of a terrorist with countless law enforcement agencies descending on the town to investigate. Among them is ATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) out of the New Orleans office. A dogged investigator, Carlin follows the clues, trying to find out why a suspicious corpse ended up in the explosion's aftermath. He's approached by an FBI agent (Val Kilmer) leading a special investigative team that has some special technology at its disposal. They say it enables them to compile satellite images to see what happened some four days before. Carlin goes along with it, starting to piece it all together, all in hopes of finding some clue that will lead them to the terrorist bomber. It isn't long though before he figures out the "satellite" description is garbage. Somehow, some way, he's literally looking back in time...

What a fun, smart, stylish movie. Like I mentioned, time-travel movies are inherently complicated to the point it is difficult/impossible to 1. Keep up with it and 2. Not shake your head at the goofiness of it. With director Tony Scott at the helm, it has some of the stylistic elements of his previous efforts, especially Man on Fire, Spy Game and Enemy of the State. The quick cuts, the rapid camera movement, the unique shooting angles, it's all there, combining with a memorable score from Harry Gregson-Williams to add that great secondary layer to the story.

For me though what sets 'Deja Vu' apart from so many time travel movies -- Back to the Future to The Terminator, Looper to Planet of the Apes and many more -- is its creativity. It seems to revel in that creativity, that original, generally unique idea. How so? SPOILERS Carlin figures out they're not looking back in time, they're literally watching the past happen through some time-bending technology this investigative team has stumbled upon. Plot holes, time discrepancies aside, it's so cool as a premise. Scott's clearly having some fun with the time-bending concept, especially with a bit of technology that allows Carlin to wear a goggle headset so the time-traveling moves with him, what he sees through the goggles is what happened previously. Wwwwwhhhhaaaatttt? The premise injects some crazy energy into the always fun car chase sub-genre. Just watch this extended chase scene, sit back and smile, take it all in.

There is something eternally watchable about Denzel Washington in just about any movie he does, from heavy drama like Philadelphia or Glory to more mainstream, fun affairs like 2 Guns, Out of Time and Deja Vu. His Doug Carlin is a career agent with the ATF, and a good agent at that. He's a dogged investigator, stubbornly pursuing his cases, especially a terrorist attack that tears apart a city with the deaths of 500-plus people. Washington is so good, so effortless, it's just a pleasure to watch him do his thing. He's calm and cool...until he isn't like when he pieces it all together and figures out exactly what kind of technology he's working with. The case develops around the dead body of a beautiful young woman (Paula Patton) from New Orleans, Carlin wondering what he could have done to save her. Could he have done something different? Not one of his best performances, but just about any Denzel is good Denzel.

Dezel is the star, and Paula Patton gets a chance to shine in the final act, but who else to look for? Doc Holliday himself, Val Kilmer, has some good chemistry as Carlin's quasi-counter, not always telling the full truth while not lying either. His team includes the always reliable Adam Goldberg, Erika Alexander and Elden Henson. As for the villain who we see in all sorts of different ways courtesy of the time-bending story, Jim Caviezel is perfectly creepy, a so-called patriot but an unhinged one willing to go to horrific measures. Bruce Greenwood is a high-ranking FBI official on the case while Matt Craven appears briefly as Doug's long-time partner in the field.

It can be so easy with time-traveling stories for things to derail and do so quickly. That's not the case here with a story that manages to hold it all together under some post-movie scrutiny. The multiple storylines (and timelines) hold together when you really (really) think about it. Through it all, it's fun, even a final act that comes across as a little forced, a little too gimmicky. Still, 'Deja' is ridiculously fun from beginning to end with a finale that's frustrating a touch, but mostly, it just works so well. So freaking entertaining. Highly recommended, a great time-bending thriller.

Deja Vu (2006): ***/****

Unstoppable

What makes a good bad guy? I'm not talking run of the mill, everyday type villains.  We're talking epically bad, that perfect villain that doesn't have an ounce of good, a shred of decency in them. There's Darth Vader, the T-1000, Anton Chigurh, and any number of quality ones that I could write whole reviews about.  For the most part, the problem with many villains is that they can be stopped. Morals, principles, exhaustion, a bullet to the head (or a thousand), things can stop them. What about something man-made though with no conscious or thought process to slow it down. In the case of 2010's Unstoppable, that villain is a runaway train carrying thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and a cargo of highly dangerous chemicals.

Before I go into the movie too much, I'm going to say that I like director Tony Scott and several of the movies he's made over the years. There is nothing wrong with a director who finds a niche and sticks with it.  Whole careers have been made off that premise.  But in Scott's case, I'm struggling to think of a director currently working in Hollywood who has become more cliched, more of a stereotype of himself than Scott.  His movies are good, mindless flicks that require no thinking at all.  But seriously, I feel like I could do a movie for him with all his personal touches and audiences might not know the difference.  Unstoppable is like that, one cliche after another.  The movie isn't bad, but it's not good either.

On his first day at a new job as a train conductor for a railroad line in Pennsylvania, Will Colson (Chris Pine) is assigned to work with veteran engineer Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) hauling 20 rail cars from one stop to another. Arriving at her office, yardmaster Connie Hooper (Rosario Dawson) receives a call that one of her trains is loose on the tracks with no one on board controlling it. The report says it's a coaster, a train that should be easily stopped, but it isn't. The half-mile long train is picking up speed, and with thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and seven cars of a dangerous chemical, it is becoming an immense missile heading into a highly populated area full of towns every few miles. All sorts of rescue efforts are brought up, but it may come down to Will and Frank riding their engine backwards, desperately trying to catch up to the runaway train, latch on and brake it before it derails. But is there enough time?

Yes, of course there's enough time. Did you really think a major studio release starring Denzel Washington and Chris Pine was going to have a downer ending? Shame on you if you did. This has to be one of the most cliched movies I've ever seen. The trailer I'll link to later basically throws everything at the wall with the hope that something sticks, something makes the audience nervous.  A train full of little kids is on the same track as the runaway train. A horse trailer is almost smashed to bits. Washington's character is about to be fired. Pine's character is having struggles back at the old homestead with the wife. There is nothing here that you won't have seen before. Nothing at all.  It's never boring, but you certainly have that feeling of having been there and done that with countless other movies.

You can't chalk that all up to Scott because the script is obviously a major contributor to the damage.  Some of it though? Oh, yeah, the blame goes on his shoulders.  Tony Scott has a very distinctive, unique shooting style.  His editing is fast, even choppy and hard to decipher at times, throwing countless quick cuts and images at you in an almost non-stop barrage.  With a story like this, that is almost necessary.  It keeps things going, adding to the sense of urgency settling in on all these people desperately trying to stop the runaway train.  But just like the issues with the story, it's the same thing over and over again.  If you saw Man on Fire, Taking of Pelham 123, Deja Vu, Spy Game, Enemy of the State (all movies I like and recommend), you've seen it all, and Scott feels like he's mailing it in here.  Not the director's best work.

The saving grace amidst all the chaos is Washington -- one of Hollywood's most bankable stars -- being paired with Pine -- one of Hollywood's up and coming stars.  In the worst movies, Denzel is worth watching, and that's no different here. He is as natural, as easygoing, as personable as any movie star I've ever seen. The fact that his character is basically a rehash of the one he played in Pelham 123 is a minor thing. His chemistry with Pine is great, their dialogue scenes so perfect you question if this movie could have been so much better if more time could have been focused on these two guys.  I've had a crush for years on Rosario Dawson so I'll basically watch anything she's in. Her part is one that just about any actress could play, but she's good nonetheless.  Also worth mentioning is Ethan Suplee as Dewey, the conductor who let his train go rogue, Kevin Dunn as a railroad exec trying to figure out what to do, Kevin Corrigan as a railroad safety expert helping Dawson, and Lew Temple as a railroad employee who may be a wild card in solving the situation.

Watching this based on a true story movie, I was never bored. How could a suicidal runaway train not be interesting, right? But that's it. There's nothing else. At 98 minutes, the movie felt stretched out, like Scott used everything he had at his disposal to get it to that length. The portrayal of the media coverage is interesting as incidents like this in the modern world of a 24/7 news cycle don't go unnoticed.  But though it may try for all it's worth, the movie never amounts to anything other than mindless -- very mindless -- entertainment.  Know what you're getting, and hopefully you'll get some enjoyment out of it.

Unstoppable <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****   

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Asking movie fans about remakes can be a touchy subject. I tend to agree most of the time that remakes aren't necessary depending on the movie and studios should just come up with new, creative ideas instead of going back to the well repeatedly. On the other hand, I don't get it when fans are against ANY remake. If you don't want to see it, don't. I've rarely gone into a remake thinking, "Hey, I bet this is better than the original." I'm usually looking for an entertaining story with some alterations to the story, casting, whatever. I got that with the new The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

The original Pelham One Two Three is a cult classic in its own right with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as the two leads with one big claim to fame, providing inspiration for Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. So the remake, with bigger names headlining, still had some pretty big shoes to fill. Is it as good as the original? I'll have to think about that, but gut reaction, close but not as good.

The story is the same with a few slight changes. On a New York subway train, Pelham 123, four men led by Ryder (John Travolta) hijack a single car with its 18 passengers. Getting in contact with the Metro Transit Authority headquarters, they make their demands. They want $10 million in one hour or else they will start shooting a passenger for every minute they're late. At the other end of the radio at MTA HQ is Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a former supervisor demoted to a desk job while under investigation for supposedly taking a bribe. What follows is a cat and mouse game as Ryder and Garber talk back and forth while NY desperately tries to put together the $10 million ransom.

The heist-like premise is a good one that quickly brings up interesting questions. They've hijacked a train, but how will they escape once they get the money? They're underground after all. It's a tense movie as Ryder, either the sanest villain ever or the craziest, I just can't decide, plays mind games with Garber and hostage negotiator Camonetti (John Turturro, good as always). A SWAT team waits at either end of the single car waiting for the order to take down the hijackers while inside the quartet are one push away from blowing away the hostages.

Enough has been changed that director Tony Scott left his mark on the movie to set it apart from the original. There's an element of technology added to the heist as Ryder has a wireless connection to Google his counterpart on the other end of the radio, and the aspect of the stock market comes up. The heist isn't as straightforward as the original with bigger plans at work, but with a reveal of Ryder's identity late in the movie the additions work. Scott's movies are often more known for their style and flash than story, and that's true here to a point, lots of slow motion blurry shots, quick cuts that can be hard to keep up with, but the director doesn't go too far with it.

There's a natural tension in the story that would be hard to mess up from the director's chair. An hour is not a long time, especially when talking about getting $10 million from a bank and then driving it through NY traffic with the time remaining. The mayor (James Gandolfini in a great part) does question at some point, "Why didn't we just use a helicopter?" Because Mr. Mayor, then we couldn't have the cool race through Manhattan as a squad car with motorcycle escort weaves through traffic.

Working with Scott for the fourth time, Washington is the heart of the movie. His Garber character is an everyman, John Smith trying to care for his family, go to work and pay his mortgage and his kids' tuition. It's the type of part that Washington could do with his eyes closed, and he doesn't disappoint. Most of the running time, all Garber can do is talk, desperately trying to stop Ryder or at least slow him down. There's a twist that works to a fault and does come as a surprise because well....he's Denzel Washington. Hamming it up as the villain, Travolta goes too far at times, but for the character his theatrics are appropriate. He's the bad guy you love to hate but can laugh at too with how off the wall some of his comments can be.

'Pelham' is Washington's and Travolta's movie. The rest of the cast makes the most of smaller parts, especially Turturro and Gandolfini, but other than those two parts no one stands out. One of my favorite character actors Luis Guzman is criminally underused in his part as Ramos, one of the four hijackers. The other two hijackers, Victor Gojcaj and Robert Vataj, are intimidating, but I don't even recall hearing their names. The two are characters with automatic weapons, and that's it, but I guess that is what the script called for. Michael Rispoli and Ramon Rodriguez are good in smaller roles as two members of MTA headquarters.

I didn't love the remake like I wanted to, but I did enjoy it. I can chalk up a lot of that to the trailer which really convinced me to see it. The ending is forced a little too much for me, but the build-up makes up for that. So overall, it lived up to my expectations of a remake. Good but not great, and worth a watch. I do recommend seeing the original, if for nothing else than to compare the two. Go see the Pelham remake, if for nothing else than Washington in a great part going toe to toe with villainous Travolta.