Are you going where you think you're going? Are you really who you think you are? This quiet little film explores the lives of a man and a woman who are gently, but insistently, forced together by fate, or karma, or destiny(or whatever). Their romance was set into motion before they were even born, and although they try to avoid each other, plans are altered, "coincidences" happen, and mysteries unravel. Very romantic and wistful!
Add a Review
-
sparrownightly22 December 1999
-
ksf-221 April 2022Dana and sean meet, and immediately hit it off. But he's married, and she is engaged. And their paths cross again... is it fate ? Coincidence? Dana is so forgetful, i'm surprised she remembers where she lives. She's constantly leaving things behind. And every now and then, gets frenetic. Small role for vanessa redgrave. Lots of repetition. And pausing. And hesitating. Makes me wonder if there was a lot of improv? Or did people just keep forgetting their lines? Got annoying after a while. The story idea is good. There's some good acting, and some not so good acting. And a couple scenes go on too long. Directed by henry jaglom. And co-written by victoria foyt... who happens to play dana. And was married to jaglom for a period of time. It's pretty good. Gotta overlook some flaws.
-
Euphorbia26 September 2002I watched Deja Vu immediately after seeing the superb "Amelie," and the parallels are striking. Both films are premised on the role of a whimsical and amoral 'fate' in setting the course of romance, offering mortals the choice of opting in, thereby risking everything mundane and familiar for immediate joy (which might or might not be everlasting), or opting out, sacrificing true love for the comforts of the safe and familiar -- and both movies posit the epicenter of this sort of fated romance as Montmartre in Paris.
But beyond this, the two films could not be more different. Amelie is pure surreal fantasy set in a "Paris" which despite having been filmed on location, is no more real than Disneyland (although a lot more interesting). Deja Vu is equally a fantasy, but it is set in a much more realistic world, with only a subtly softened romantic aura. The writing, direction, and acting are all serious and good, which creates a paradoxical problem in that one cares a lot more about the future ex's than one would in a bawdy comedy or a surreal fantasy (Amelie avoids this problem entirely by having no ex's). All of which leaves unanswered the question posited by Deja Vu -- is this really romance, or is it madness?
* Possible spoiler follows *
The ending of Deja Vu demands we take it on faith that following the whims of the fates is the right way to go. I would have been happier with more evidence, for example a coda in which architect Sean and would-be innkeeper Dana begin to create a new inn of their own, as pointed contrast to Alex and Dana's aborted plan to restore someone else's dream villa. Absent this I give Deja Vu a 6/10 (worthy effort that fails to satisfy), while I gave Amelie an 8. -
rowland-63 October 2003I can understand that `Déjà vu' isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Personally I bought it because of the title which intrigued me.
Being sort of a film freak I like all sorts of movies, and although being a middle-aged male I have a very special feeling for romantic dramas and comedies. And I must say I like `Déjà vu' very, very much. I didn't know anything about it when I started watching it, but was immediately drawn into the story. It isn't an ordinary Hollywood movie where things have to happen quickly all the time. Here people are allowed to talk. They are allowed to be uncertain, searching, confused, not knowing what to do with or how to express their feelings. But if you haven't experienced, or don't think it is possible to do so, what it is, or may be, to suddenly be hit by love and passion, then I understand if you can't relate to this film. But all who can will probably feel a sting in their hearts. As I said, to me `Déjà vu' is a very, very good movie, and I also like the way it is filmed. I have watched it several times and will certainly watch it several times more.
Rowland -
rooz6 May 1999Love and mystery. Imagination. This is one of Henry's most accessible films, one which should appeal to a wider audience. It is a well rounded story from beginning to end, and quite rewarding. I left the theatre with a smile from ear to ear.
-
Gaili12 November 1998I loved Deja Vu. It's about love and magic, and being honest with yourself. Vanessa Redgrave is beautiful, and the relationships in the film are fascinating. The film made me think about my life, and the choices I've made, or have not made. I made changes in my life after seeing the film that were very good for me. This film has it all---mystery, love, humor, beauty. I saw it several times, and never got bored. Go see it, or rent it!
-
biondo_jennifer15 August 2020I was compelled to write this review because of the lead actress, Victoria Foyt. Her performance was absolutely terrible! It was so bad that it was distracting from the rest of the actors. Once she finally was silent, for a short amount of time, Stephen Dillane's and Vanessa Redgrave's brilliance could be seen. I must also say, once you get through some of the hokey "coincidences", there are some good parts to the movie. But Redgrave and Dillane carried it for sure. Foyt ruined it.
-
john.schneider14 March 2000This movie reminds me of a Woody Allen film, only the actors haven't a script to memorize. They are given a rough outline of the story and are asked to improvise and we'll see how it all ends up. The premise of the story is pretty good; the implementation is fairly awful.
There is very little background music, so the talkiness of the piece seems to become unbearable. If I had heard Dana say one more time, "What are you doing here?" I thought I'd throw something at the TV.
The best things about the movie were the comments my wife and I made a'la Mystery Science Theater 3000. And its a shame that the nicest person in the film, the blond wife of the love interest was given such short rift. She was best thing about the movie.
But if you like films where the selfish pursuit of self-interests, others be damned, is glorified, you'll want to suffer through this one. -
By rights "Déjà Vu" should have been a huge success with wide audiences. The fact that it was not may have to do with it's fairly unknown leading actors as well as Jaglom's previous works, which in some cases would be understandably off putting. It's really a great pity, since "Déjà vu" is one of the great romantic movies, (certainly of the nineties.)
"Last Summer at the Hamptons" indicated an as yet unseen maturity which had been so lacking in Jaglom's previous works. He was finally emerging from his fixated somewhat obsessive traits which may have garnered him a hard core fan base, but have more likely infuriated many. I would urge you, whether you have any knowledge of Jaglom's works or not, to simply give "Déjà vu" a chance.
The conundrum whether two souls on this earth are meant for each other and the eventuality of them meeting (or not) is naturally intriguing. In lesser hands it could degenerate into mush, but Jaglom manages to keep the unbelievable believable in a really delightful and thought provoking manner. Stephen Dillane fits the lead role perfectly. A reputable stage actor, his movie credits have been less impressive, but in "Déjà vu" he proves he has the charisma vital for a leading man on the big screen. Victoria Foyt in the female lead is not as assuredly ready for leading lady status. (Jaglom has often cast his spouse of the time in his movies.) Foyt teeters between making it work or not, but in the final analysis she pulls it off; but just. The supporting roles are really a joy to behold. Vanessa Redgrave seems to be enjoying her role tremendously. Jaglom, a believer in his actors improvising, probably allowed her much room in developing her character. Rachel Kempson, her real life mother, appears in a cameo role as Redgrave's mother in the movie. They share a brief and terribly poignant scene which surely has much to do with their real life connection. Then there's Noel Harrison (Rex's son) and Anna Massey exuding subtle and captivating British humor. Whether you allow yourself to believe the "Déjà vu" story as it unfolds, or simply absorb it as an adult fairy tale, you will likely reap the benefits of a genuine "feel good" movie. -
=G=7 June 2003"Deja Vu" is a romantic love story but not the usual fare with hearts and flowers or sweaty sex. This film follows a chance encounter abroad between a betrothed woman on business travel and a local married artist. During the run, the film wanders around the couple and sundry other people - family, friends, etc. - as it examines, explores, studies, ponders, analyzes, etc. issues of fate and destiny as they relate to love. "Deja Vu" offers a whole lot of dialogue, some faces we don't see too often, a kind of a fresh motif for a moldy subject, a generally pleasant story albeit somewhat trite and corny at times, and is salted with variety of coincidences large and small and even dabbles in the paranormal. An enjoyable romance which will play best with mature romantics, especially females. (B)
-
Dana is a young woman about to be married to Alex, her fiancé and business partner. On a trip to Isreal, a lady at the local cafe tells her a story about the love of her life. The older woman met him in Paris but never saw him again, despite his promises. She leaves a piece of jewelry behind. All of a sudden, Dana is in Paris, trying to track down the woman, then she hops to Dover, where she meets Sean. Sean is painting in the open air on top of, you guessed it, the white cliffs of Dover. They instantly fall in love but there are numerous complications, including the fact that Sean is married. But, given the lady in Israel's circumstances, should anything discourage Dana from following her heart and her man? This is a very strange movie. The basic plot outline is acceptable. But, the story and dialogue appear to have been made up on the spot! The whole thing zigzags worse than a bumblebee in a field of flowers and some pretty inane things come out of the characters' mouths. True love is a subject dear to everyone's heart but this movie takes an awful long time getting to the point. The actors are all fine and the settings nice. But, for most of the viewers across the globe, this will be a most boring movie. No need for a deja vu, one view, at most, will be sufficient.
-
I wasn't expecting much of Deja Vu, but I was intrigued by the title. The fact that the cast included Vanessa Redgrave also intrigued me (she's among my short list of favorite actors). The movie was absorbing from the first moment. A beautiful woman, walking through a bazaar in Jerusalem. She seems at loose ends. What will happen to her? What happens is extraordinary, yet the story seemed real, as did the characters. Some less patient moviegoers might consider Deja Vu to be "talky," but that made the movie even more intriguing. The conversations seemed not to be "seen on film," but participated in. As you watched and listened, you were actually *there*. Only two other movies of recent memory (Babette's Feast and The Dead) gave me that feeling. The people were real, and (thank goodness) they were *adults*, each of whom had a fascinating story to tell. Deja Vu is a romance, a travelogue, a mystery, and a life lesson, all in one film.
-
alrodbel17 July 2009I once experienced the most vivid sense of Deju Vu. It was having met a young woman in Copenhagen, my first trip to Europe in 1968, as a single man of 28. We were not in love, but we connected. We were going "steady" for a few days...and I was staying at her apartment, where she was living with a family.
She was a long term visitor from Poland, and in some ways we didn't even connect, but there was the strongest sense of being on a treadmill, where my destiny was pre-ordained. Although I was in a strange city, I felt amazingly comfortable.
I'm not a mystic, so I attribute it to a combination of jet lag, or the sun rising in the middle of the May night, of a combination of irreality, and absolute physical-sexual comfort. It never happened before...or again.
Now about the film. In spite of my relating to the Deja Vu aspect, I found the conversation lacking in spontaneity or in believability. I always gauge the quality of a film by the minor characters, are they more than placeholders to complete a plot. The wife and fiancé of the two central characters were just that, each so devoid of realism that the kind of sympathy for someone who is perfunctorily discarded is avoided.
And then there's the song, " They'll be blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover...." the beautiful tune that evokes a moment in history, a time when the lives of vital young men were as fragile as a kitten loose in Trafalgar Square. It was a time when a glance between two people, a connection, could mean that if taken, if grasped, they might have a moment of joy, of completion, that very likely could be the only such taste of life of the man facing probable death.
"......tomorrow when the world is free," was understood to be a tomorrow that one of them would never see, that could only be lived in the memory of one whom he loved, if the love was taken at that moment, never to be offered again.
I don't know whether those born after those years can understand what the song meant. And perhaps for those who loved the film, the connection was made, and for those I'm glad the film gave them a slight whiff of those now forgotten days. -
If you strip away all the romantic trappings of destiny conspiring to bring two soul mates together, this remains a tawdry tale of adultery between an English architect and an American businesswoman. One is married for ten years and the other on the brink of her wedding. Jaglom does his best to garner sympathy for the two lovers. It is not their fault that they lie and cheat but fate that keeps throwing them together. Destiny's hand is revealed in a reoccurring theme song, numerous chance encounters, and a mysterious broach. For good measure, he even throws in a supernatural element. The lovers never seem to express any genuine guilt or skepticism. They are just in a constant state of amazement and are as dumbfounded as the audience at the ridiculousness of the movie's script. Just as one of the lovers begins to exhibit some misgivings, Vanessa Redgrave as the wise sage of "seize the day" theory gives a resounding speech about "jumping into the river of life."
Another false note was the dogma-style hand-held camera technique which gives a gritty realism that is jarring to the fairy tale like story the director so desperately wants to sell. By the end, instead of cheering on the lovers my sympathies were with their discarded partners. -
Patricia-142 October 1999I can't recall a movie that has ever so totally charmed and captivated me. Like other Jaglom films, this one makes great use of Victoria Foyt, and uses the refreshing method of allowing actors to ad-lib many of their lines. I found this to give the film a fresh, unconstrained feeling well suited to this type of story. I came out of the theater enveloped in a dreamy, warm romantic glow that stayed with me to the next day. I've been checking for this movie to be available for purchase on video ever since! For anyone who believes in fate and its hand in our lives and loves, this is a movie you'll cherish.
-
gennie-324426 January 2023Wonderful and very romantic movie that Amazon Prime Video recommended to me! The main idea of the movie is that if two people are destined to be together, there are multiple signs in their life that show they should be together. Even if they try not to be together and fight their attraction to each other (for example if they are in relationships with other people) fate will bring them together!
Dana is engaged and meets Sean who is married. Their attraction is instant, they fight it and fate keeps bringing them together. The movie is set in Jerusalem, Dover, UK, London, UK, Paris and L. A.
I liked the plot and the actors a lot. Vanessa Redgrave says something interesting to Dana who is wondering what to do with her feelings for Sean: "If you really want something and fate presents it to you, this means it's yours and you should take it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be presented to you. This is living"
I also liked the movie, because it's like virtual traveling and seeing distant places.
The message is that if you sense an instant strong romantic connection with someone and they feel it, too, you should look deeper to discover that there are many things connecting you!
Delighful ending, in my opinion and nice music. -
blrab-110 July 2004Dana, played by Victoria Foyt, is a woman not in control of her life. You get the feeling she is bumbling about, directed by friends around her. Not until the very end does she realize she can be in control of her life. A believable story, showing how apparently small events change the course of our lives.
Excellent dialogue, you feel as though you're eavesdropping on the conversations, rather than hearing words from a screenplay. Excellent photography. Victoria Foyt and her husband, Henry Jaglom, wrote the screenplay. He also directed the picture.
Good music, including some good old popular songs. -
ekuball27 September 1998Having read great reviews of "Deja Vu" by some of the more prominent film critics in the country, I went to the theater expecting at least a well-made movie. This film, more than any other, has taught me never to trust the critics. When watching "Deja Vu," I felt as though I was seeing the first attempt at film-making by an adolescent. The acting, especially by Victoria Foyt (the writer, female lead, and wife of the director), was horrendous. (After watching the film, I visited IMDb to check out Foyt's film history. I learned that she has been in three films, all of which she wrote and all of which were directed by her husband. This, in and of itself, should lead viewers to be suspicious of her abilities.) The camera work was also distracting and poorly done. I felt as though I were watching a home movie shot by someone who has just realized that his camera can zoom in and out. The editing was choppy, at best. Long periods of time passed in which Victoria Foyt is seen staring off into space, supposedly thinking deep thoughts. But never are we given any reason to believe this could be the case. The music is dramatic, but in a nauseating way, supposedly serving to further prove that Foyt is as deep as she's pretending to be. Finally, the storyline is weak. If I had submitted this screenplay in a high school writing class, my teacher would surely have told me I had used every cliche in the book. A series of coincidences happens throughout the movie, and not one of them is believable. By the end of the film, with the last great "surprise" (which any halfway intelligent person could see coming from the first half hour), my reaction was to laugh at the writing, the acting, and the film as a whole. The only positive thing I can say about "Deja Vu" is that if weak films like this one are being produced, future writers need only realize that perseverance is all it takes in order to find an audience. Quality is, apparently, virtually unimportant.
-
jjp26 December 1999Sure, it is a romantic comedy. It has about as much chance to happen in real life as I have to win the lotto. But for once in this kind of movie, I did not feel it was written with highschoolers in mind. Direction and acting are on par with the story. Jerusalem, Paris, Dover and London locations do not spoil it either. I enjoyed it thoroughly from beginning to end and it kept me smiling well after it was finished.
-
eustfam28 June 2007I watched this movie for 2 reasons: (1) i just love stephen dillane (ever since "firelight" with sophie marceau) and (2) it is a love story. the only things i loved about the movie was stephen dillane and vanessa redgrave; the songs (where or when, it had to be you, the white cliffs of dover, my serenade). Otherwise, had i known it was going to be like a fantasy of some woman finding the love of her life and jumping at the opportunity to be with that soul mate, well... it was to far-fetched for me! Not that i don't believe in finding one's soul mate; but the story line for this particular movie was weird and personally, i felt the lead actress didn't know how to act at all. But she was the writer, hence she got top spot.
-
drsusan14 October 2000I loved the unpolished, almost unscripted, real behaviors of the characters in this movie. Being urged to see that "illusion is the scent of something real coming close," and the encouragement to "jump into life" and to not settle for simply nice or no-trouble relationships is the message. And being open to the magic and deep connections that you may come upon in your path.
-
paulcreeden13 October 2000This film is a mystery. An unsolved mystery. Who is this Henry Jaglom? How does he get money together to make a movie like this? Who is Ms. Foyt, the leading lady? Is she an actress? Why were Stephen Dillane and Vanessa Redgrave in this film? Are their agents still alive? Why were Jagloms on the beach in Israel given higher billing than established British character actors in the cast? Was the Royal Academy notified? Was Scotland Yard notified? Is Mr. Jaglom still allowed in England? Isn't it eerie how a film, obviously perfect for cheapo cable stations, wasn't actually made for cable? My prayer for any fellow film viewer is that this film is NOT deja vu.
-
Bridget-1629 November 2000This was one of the most romantic movies I've ever seen. The story is fascinating, beginning with the conversation at the cafe in Jerusalem with Dana and the mystery woman, through Dana's search in Paris, to the White Cliffs of Dover. To me, this movie is hope for women that there is one person out there who is truly meant for them and sometimes you are lucky enough to find that one person, as Dana was. The music was so fitting and made me weepy at times. I was really blown away at the ending, because I hadn't expected it, but it was so fitting. The final shot of the film says it all for me. Henry Jaglom and Victoria Foyt are truly the new wave of film makers and her beauty is extraordinary. As soon as the movie was over I wanted to watch it again.
-
marina-3115 July 2000This film seems to be either loved or hated, as even the user ratings show. I'm one of the ones who loves it. It seems either one "gets it" or one misses the point. You have to be able to overlook some of the low budget feel of some of the technical aspects, not be in a critical frame of mind, and just sit back and let it hit you. I'm a very big Stephen Dillane fan, think he's so real in each role he plays, and this film gives many moments of enjoying his honest-feeling responses to the events of the story. I recommend viewing it alone, at least at first, because then you can really be free to enjoy it without the additional dynamic of wondering if others like it. I got my husband to watch it with me, and it was hard for him to let it hit him. It is more of a woman's film, anyway, as the male lead is much more attractive than the female lead, not like another romance, Firelight, with Stephen Dillane and Sophie Marceau, a sexy female lead.
-
little_rhody24 June 2007Henry Jaglom's films have a distinct feel to them. The dialog is more natural, less theatrical, with stammers, stutters, repetition, hesitation, and stepping on lines. In this film we follow an engaged woman from the streets of Jerusalem, through Tel Aviv, Paris, Dover and onto London where she is to meet up with her fiancé. This journey was shaped in part by a mysterious woman she meets in Jerusalem. Along the way she encounters a dashing gentleman who seems to be the perfect fit for her. This film raises questions about destiny and soul mates. Steven Dillane and Victoria Foyt work well together, and Vanessa Redgrave glows.