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.

I 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.

This is a love story with more truth than is comfortable sometimes. I think most of us have either loved two people at once or had to decide whether we should stay or leave a relationship. That struggle is what this movie is about. Stay with what is comfortable or follow your heart.This movie is a bit uneven, sometimes pulling you in so deeply that you can hardly breathe, then in the very next scene you will feel like you are watching a documentary. You feel you know how it will end one moment, and the next you are uncertain. The film takes you back and forth on so many levels. I think that's the point of the movie's structure really -- the watcher is pulled one way and then the other, just like the people in the movie.We all have to make choices, do you want to follow your heart, no matter where it takes you and accept the uncertainty that goes with it, or do you stay with the comfortable stability of the known?A powerful movie. If you have a chance to see it, go for it. I would recommend seeing it alone to get the full impact. Commercials and chatter would ruin the mood.

This 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.