 | |
List Price: $12.98 | | Label: Universal Studios
Salesrank: 18199
Released: August 8, 2006 |
| Our Price: $1.09 |
| Used Price: $0.57 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Academy Award winner Denzel Washington, Academy Award nominee Clive Owen and Academy Award winner Jodie Foster star in this intense and explosive crime thriller. The perfect bank robbery quickly spirals into an unstable and deadly game of cat-and-mouse between a criminal mastermind (Owen), a determined detective (Washington), and a power broker with a hidden agenda (Foster). As the minutes tick by and the situation becomes increasingly tense, one wrong move could mean disaster for any one of them. From acclaimed director Spike Lee comes the edge-of-your-seat, action-packed thriller that The Wall Street Journal calls "a heist film that’s right on the money."
Description of Inside Man (Full Screen Edition) (2006):
Spike Lee scored his biggest hit to date with Inside Man, an unconventional thriller with fascinating details in the margins of its convoluted plot. The screenplay (by first-timer Russell Gerwitz) could've used a few more rewrites; it moves at a brisk pace but in hindsight a lot of it doesn't make sense. That makes Inside Man more fun to watch than to think about afterwards (when you discover plot holes big enough to drive a truck through), but it's curiously involving, especially as NYPD Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) struggles to outsmart a high-stakes bank robber (Clive Owen) who, along with a well-trained crew of accomplices, has seized control of a Wall Street bank, turning what initially looks like a hostage crisis into a personal crusade to expose some mysterious evil secrets. As you might expect from the director of Do the Right Thing, Lee seizes several satisfying opportunities to examine post-9/11 issues of racial prejudice and domestic terrorism, and the mysterious "problem solver" Madeline White (Jodie Foster), as eerily sinister as she is vaguely defined, is worthy of her own movie. With the benefit of his most stellar cast to date (including Christopher Plummer, Willem Dafoe and Chiwetel Ejiofor), Lee seems more interested in character details than well-crafted suspense, but that doesn't stop Inside Man from being engrossing, subtly amusing, and quirky enough to qualify as a welcomed break from the formulaic thrillers that are Hollywood's bread and butter. --Jeff Shannon
Inside Man (Full Screen Edition) (2006) Reviews:
Spike Lee Dropped The Ball. It Could've Been Great. 
2009-11-24 - I don't write spoilers. A good plot, keeps you guessing. A plot flaw or three in the mix, but not terminal. The fatal flaw? No climax, & no final explanation. Unbelievable... Too many loose ends, unexplained motives, & no closure = take a pass on this one. On the bright side. I only paid 75 cents plus shipping for it :-). It was worth that much. I'll use my imagination to show how badly Spike Lee dropped the ball, here.
A fine movie 
2009-11-09 - For viewers who like characters that match wits with each other, you will enjoy this movie. The story setting is a bank robbery where hostages are taken and the bank is surrounded by the police, trapping the crooks inside. The principle detective called to the scene (Denzel Washington) treats it as a straightforward robbery-hostage-taking situation until he realizes the police are being manipulated for reasons that trace back to World War II. He eventually discovers why that particular bank was selected. The genius "Crook in Charge" (Clive Owen) occasionally appears to be a man with a conscience, but he's still a crook and no namby-pamby. This elevates him to an elegant criminal, with a dash of violence. Nobody can pull a fast one on him--not even Denzel.
The movie briefly delves into the detective's personal situation to add color to the story and enhances the ending.
Most stories of this genre have character-losers and -winners; but (to my great surprise) in this movie everyone wins, in one way or another. I found the conclusion most satisfying. I recommend this movie.
Great cast, fascinating premise, but . . .
2009-10-19 - It doesn't quite come off thanks to Spike Lee's heavy-handed cutting. The premise is farfetched but could carry an entertaining film if handled well. After all, this is not a documentary. Instead, Lee threw in numerous flash-forwards that partly give away the ending. He would have had a better film had he kept them in chronological order. Lee obviously wanted more of it. The disc's special features contain a lengthy series of quickstep police interviews that mercifully hit the cutting room floor. One flash-forward even details events that never occur, which only serves to confuse.
As to Jodie Foster, her character was well acted - as expected - but never seemed relevant or believable. Where does her power come from? We never learn that. Police will not permit a civilian to enter a deadly situation in the manner in which this film portrays, if ever. Yes, the mayor was pulling the strings because Lee always has to include an establishment conspiracy. Even in Malcolm X, where we know the killers were disgruntled Muslims, he has to have a police car slide by at the eleventh hour to imply conspiracy. There were other ways of dealing with the Christopher Plummer character's nefarious dealings with the Nazis.
Last, there is Lee's penchant for using the "F" word as often as possible. I know what the reaction will be from all of you who can't live without using it three times in every sentence, but it only detracts from the film. It's just a thrown-in word to . . . What? Shock? Hardly by this time. Just annoy those of us whose vocabularies exceed street level. Critic Wesley Morris said that Lee instills the film "with grit, comedy, and a ton of New York ethnic personality." If so, New York is not a nice place to visit, and I sure wouldn't want to live there. Do people say the word? Of course. Does it add to the film's realism? You premise a film on a farfetched plot and then want to swear to add realism? Justifying the "F" word as a tool of realism is an excuse producers use to appeal to a younger, more vocabulary-challenged moviegoer.
Incredible director and actors; the rest of the film . . . meh
2009-09-24 - The really good thing about Spike Lee's "Inside Man" is the ensemble of brilliant actors. Denzel Washington is a detective who has an odd choice of fashion and an issue with marriage. Clive Owen is the head of a team of robbers who has something else in mind other than money. Jodie Foster is an antagonistic broker who can easily talk down her victims. Christopher Plummer is the Chairman of the Board of Directors who is willing to keep a secret that's hidden in his own bank. Chiwetel Ejiofor is Denzel's partner in crime who is always willing to be a part of the action. These and many other actors give spectacular performances.
But as the film features a great ensemble of actors, the film itself fails to impress. Aside from the shockingly powerful conflicts involving racism and corruption, the plot involving the heist and the overthrow of a government official is something that's already been seen before. If you've seen "Dog Day Afternoon" or have read Nelson DeMille's "Cathedral," then you'll notice that the story in "Inside Man" is nothing really special. Another problem with this film is the uneven third act. With all the hell that's been going on in the last two acts, this final segment contains a much slower pace, which really becomes very tiresome when the last few minutes of the film finally approaches. And speaking of the ending, the last fifteen minutes features two twist endings. But somehow they weren't very shocking. I said to myself, "that was unexpected," but at the same time I said, "but why don't I feel as shocked as I'm supposed to be?" I guess I've seen too many twist endings in recent movies that are kind of like these two, and maybe that's why I'm not surprised at all. But I do believe that the biggest problem with this film is that the jumpy timeline. Once we're in the middle of the bank heist, we start to see some brief scenes that are set in an interrogation room (I won't spoil it for you by telling you exactly which people are inside it). This really spoils the tension and the atmosphere as we already seem to know how this will all end.
Don't get me wrong. Spike Lee is an intelligent director, and all of the actors give great performances that no doubt stick out in this movie. However, the script and the overall climax and resolution don't really work. I still prefer the film "Dog Day Afternoon" (bank heist) and the novel "Cathedral" (political corruption and hostage situation).
Part Action, Part Intrigue 
2009-09-23 - A gang robs a New York city bank but are trapped inside. They have hostages and want two buses to transport everyone to an airplane at the airport. The police have plans to prevent this. But what if the gang knows what the police are planning and have a trick? [Believable?] Can they use the hostages to divert attention while they escape? [Only in a film.] Was anything stolen from the bank vault? Is one of the safety deposit boxes missing? Did it have any valuables or just documents?
The conversations bring out the backgrounds of the characters. The film shows the trick used. [Is it possible to hide in a building for a week?] "No robbers, no loot missing, what happened?" Who would know what happened to that safety deposit box? Does it involve an event from the 1940s? Will Detective Frazier find a clue in his jacket? Will this crime be solved by the end of this film? If not, is this an inherent flaw in this story? [Yes.]
The film has some good action scenes in the beginning but loses its way at the end because it lacks a better ending.
