Fails to convince in its central concept but still has some good moments

Rating: Null/10 (12 July 2007)

A car bomb destroys a loaded ferry on its way to Mardi Gras celebrations, killing hundreds in a terrorist attack. ATF agent Doug Carlin impresses his peers in the early stages of the investigation and is brought onto a select team by FBI Agent Pryzwarra. The aim of the team is to review surveillance footage from about four and a half days before the incident. Carlin quickly smells a rat and is told that the footage is actually made possible by a loop in time and is essentially a live feed from the past. With the murder of Claire Kuchever their only lead, the team start to follow her movements in the lead up to the attack; but can Carlin stay remote from his subjects when they seem so alive in front of him?
It is no wonder that the trailer struggled to sell the high concept that this film is built around because the film itself really struggles with it. I'm not even sure where the writers started when coming up with this idea because, although it does have nice touches, it is generally very messy and nonsensical. It is not necessarily a problem in the idea itself but rather in the delivery. Is the central concept in The Matrix (for example) less silly? Well no, but it convinces within the universe created by the film. However with Déjà Vu this is not true and it doesn't manage to sell the idea to the viewer, with nothing really being constant within it and the concept conveniently drifting to help the plot. The problem with this is that it then gets in the way of what is otherwise a perfectly serviceable run-of-the-mill thriller coming out of the Hollywood machine (I don't mean this as a criticise but just an acknowledgement of what it is).
As a result it doesn't flow as well as it should because the shaky foundation it is built on keeps on rearing its head. Individual moments are professionally and slickly done to the point that you forget the bigger picture and lose yourself in the moment (Fox's 24 gets by on this same idea of momentum keeping you questioning the past too much) but this doesn't last and soon you can't help but look around you and be unsure.
Is it a bad film though? Well, no, it is actually OK but nothing more than that. Scott does all he can be expected to do with the material and he injects as much style and energy into it as he can and does produce a good thriller  albeit a good thriller build on a very, very weak foundation. Washington is a strong presence and he relies heavily on that  turning in an OK but entirely predictable performance. Patton is pretty but struggles to build a character with her position in the film  it doesn't help that the makers decided that she has more value naked in an unnecessary shower scene. Kilmer is solid enough, as are Greenwood, Alexander and Goldberg. Caviezel deserved better than his simple character; he tries hard but can't really be the presence he needs to be.
A solid enough thriller then, but just one that is hard to get into and stay with consistently mainly because it fails to deliver its concept in a convincing and engaging way. It has its moments but as a total film it isn't up to much.