Deja Vu

Starring Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, Jim Caveizel, and Paula Patton.
Directed by Tony Scott

Summary
An ATF agent (Doug Carlin, played by Denzel Washington) is investigating an act of terrorism in New Orleans. As he is investigating, he find that one "victim" of the attack died before the explosion, but was made to look as if she had died in it. As he looks for clues, he is brought into a special project that is able, through satellite technology, to watch events unfold as if it is happening right then. They search to discover the identity of the terrorist, but find themselves also questioning whether or not they can somehow save the victims before the bomb goes off. Or, is that even possible?

Review
How could this not be great? There is no better actor than Denzel Washington. On top of that, the director is Tony Scott, who also directed Man on Fire, Crimson Tide, and, one of my personal favorites, Spy Game. I was high on this movie. It let me down. I really hate to say it, but it let me down.
Now, let me say this. The acting was fine. The action was fine. The technology was interesting. The characters were okay. This movie let me down because it did not work. That may seem like a strange and vague thing to say, but it didn't work. Now, I don't want to go too deep into the space-time continuum questions, lest I end up looking like a geek. At the same time, there is the simple matter of logical consistency with the plot. Now, I don't want to give away the movie, so perhaps I can depict a parallel situation:
Let's say that I am investigating a crime. As I investigate, I find all kinds of wierd and inexplicable evidence. In fact, some of the evidence points toward the fact that I was in the crime scene when the crime happened. However, I know that this is not true, since I never was there. Then I get the chance to go back in time to try to prevent the crime. As I do so, I find that those evidences of me being at the crime scene end up truly pointing toward me because I now am at the crime scene before it happens.
Thus far, the scenario is fine. But, here is the point: It is impossible for me to stop the crime. Why, you ask? Because I already tried and failed. Think about it. I was in the future looking back at a crime that had happened. And, apparently, in that future I had already been back to try to stop it. So, when I finish the cycle and go back again, it makes no sense that I could stop it this time. I will simply play out the same scenario and always fail. It makes sense.
So, if a movie plays out this way, it must, MUST, go one of two ways. Either the person goes back in time and changes things because in the original future there was no evidence that he had ever gone back. Or, he must be foiled from changing anything because he had already tried since the original future did take his time travel into account. Really, this makes sense, even if I am not explaining it well. I think there must be some math equation to prove it.

Question for Thought
See the above rantings about the space-time continuum. Try to make sense about it. Have a great old-fashioned debate.

Overall
I hate to rail on a movie that had so much potential and, in the end, was moderately entertaining. The movie had a chance to go somewhere great with the story, but ended up taking a risk. Honestly, however, I think that the risk made the move more conventional. Movie need to be careful not to jump too quickly into the SciFi realm. I felt like I was watching a thriller that suddenly entered into SciFi. I was not ready for it, and it made the movie seem a bit silly to me. Anyway, it wasn't terrible, but it was a letdown.

Rating: 2.5 Stars out of 5 possible.