Inside Man (Spike Lee, 2006)

Message

leo goldsmith · #1 Post by **leo goldsmith** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:05 pm

Who's psyched?

Arn777 · #2 Post by **Arn777** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:24 pm

I'm not. I saw the trailer on TV about 10 days ago, and made a sarcastic remark that it was another crappy thriller from Hollywood. Then later saw the poster and saw it was from Spike Lee. Maybe it's just the trailer, but I wasn't particularly impressed, obviously.

Fletch F. Fletch · #3 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:26 pm

J. Hoberman called it, "Possibly the least personal Spike Lee joint in the entire history of cinema, the bank-heist-hostage-policier-cryptoterrorist thriller Inside Man nevertheless manages to be a most enjoyable sampling of the director's treasured "my way" eccentricities."

Review, here: http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0612,h ... 09,20.html

rs98762001 · #4 Post by **rs98762001** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:30 am

I can't wait for this. I tend to like Spike more recently when he's doing his bigger studio movies than his little personal projects. 25TH HOUR was one of the best, most underrated movies of the last few years.

dvdane · #5 Post by **dvdane** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:25 am

I saw it a few weeks ago. It IS the least personal Spike Lee film to date, a somewhat conventional caperflick, with footnote comments towards warcrimes and justice. But in the end it is nothing more than a very well told caperflick, with solid performances.

If one is so inclined, one can read the film as critic of capitalism vs. blue collar, here especially the character of Foster vs. the character of Washington, but personally I wouldn't put too much into this, as the characters seem to be more sketched towards dramatic opposition than a political commentary.

However, it is good solid entertainment.

leo goldsmith · #6 Post by **leo goldsmith** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:15 pm

Sounds immensely satisfying. And anyway, among Spike's most recent films, his seemingly "less personal" are often better, like 25th Hour and (yes, god damn it) Summer of Sam.

Carson Dyle · #7 Post by **Carson Dyle** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:20 am

Just saw it. I've always been a big Spike Lee fan. (Old Spike Lee, anyway.) I found Inside Man to be a well-made "B" picture with enough personality to elevate it above the usual studio genre stuff. I especially enjoyed all the New York flavor.

I didn't get the ending, though. It wasn't clear how we were supposed to feel about what happened. Judging by the number of "huhs?" and "whats?" I heard from the audience during the fade out, I don't think I was alone. Actually, it was one "huh?" and one "what?," but still....

leo goldsmith · #8 Post by **leo goldsmith** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:02 pm

Saw it, too, and loved it. The whole thing is very well-made, with lots of nice little Spike touches (a great Bamboozled reference at the end), and highly entertaining. The New York flavor (as Carson noted) is in full force. I don't think there's another director working with contemporary New York as well as Spike; he captures it perfectly. I'd watch Denzel do just about anything, but he's particularly excellent here, a wholly credible cop. And all the rest of the cast is superb, too.

Not sure what's so confusing about the ending, though it drags out a bit more than necessary. It's trying to be a little too cute, I guess, but the very, very ending (

SpoilerShow

with Denzel just about to get laid

) is quite satisfying.

Carson Dyle · #9 Post by **Carson Dyle** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:51 pm

Leo,

What confused me about the resolution was what we didn't see.

If someone could explain to me how to "white out" spoilers I'd be happy to elaborate.

#10 Post by **kinjitsu** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:58 pm

Carson Dyle wrote:If someone could explain to me how to "white out" spoilers I'd be happy to elaborate.

Click the quote button for this post to see the spoiler tags.

SpoilerShow

your_text

Carson Dyle · #11 Post by **Carson Dyle** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:24 pm

Thanks, Kinjitsu.

Leo,

The resolution wasn't confusing in terms of what happened, but in terms of

SpoilerShow

what the ultimate fates of the characters were. Specifically, was Christopher Plummer going to be held accountable for his actions in the '40s? It was unclear to me what Jodie and the mayor intended to do with the info Denzel gave them. A quick shot of Plummer being visited by the State Department or accosted by reporters or something of that nature would have done the trick for me. (If that's, in fact, what was going to happen.)

Also, was Clive Owen a "good" guy trying to avenge past misdeeds or merely a thief who found an opportunity to exploit an evil individual? The fact that the Jewish diamond merchant was involved leads me to believe there were personal motives for at least some of the bank robbers. And lastly, that thing with the diamond at the end. Was Denzel going to keep it? I'm still not sure if he was morally upright guy who was framed over the $140,000 or if his morals were of the more slippery variety. It all felt unclear to me.

That being said, I wish all Hollywood action/thrillers were half this smart.

rs98762001 · #12 Post by **rs98762001** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:50 pm

I liked the fact that things were left open at the end. It was another reason that the film felt so much smarter than the average Hollywood thriller.

To reply specifically to Carson - spoilers to follow -

SpoilerShow

I got the feeling that Plummer was never going to face any kind of legal justice for his acts. They left it pretty clear that he was still struggling with his conscience 50 years later, in a kind of unresolved moral purgatory, and that was enough.

I too picked up on the idea that Owen's character was in it for something more than personal gain. The last shot of him and his minions in the car almost felt like a shot from MUNICH, and I couldn't help thinking, considering all the Holocaust-related subtext, that Owen and his crew were perhaps Jews out for some sort of belated vengeance.

And I'm pretty sure Denzel's keeping the diamond. He mentioned the idea of a diamond ring to Owen earlier in the bank, and there was a nice self-servingness to Washington's character all the way through the film that set him apart from your typical hero.

#13 Post by **zedz** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:56 am

Positive Salon review.

The critical reaction to this has been interesting. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if Spike is getting his best reviews in ages for this film, even though every review seems to contain the caveat that this isn't 'major' Spike Lee.

He seems to be cursed with retrospective goodwill: there seem to be far more kind words to be found for Bamboozled in this recent spate of reviews than there were at the time of its release!

Carson Dyle · #14 Post by **Carson Dyle** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:14 am

I've never understood all the hate that's been directed toward Spike Lee thoughout the years. It's almost laughable the way critics and others have pounced with such relish on whatever flaws they could find in his films, as if to say "see, you suck, now shut up and go away."

Is that the price of being outspoken?

HerrSchreck · #15 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:49 am

Carson Dyle wrote:I've never understood all the hate that's been directed toward Spike Lee thoughout the years. It's almost laughable the way critics and others have pounced with such relish on whatever flaws they could find in his films, as if to say "see, you suck, now shut up and go away."

Is that the price of being outspoken?

I think his sour grapes at the Oscars calling them racists for not giving him a statue pretty much asked for that kinda treatment in all honesty. Like Scorcese (or the uh once non-Emmy graceful Sue Lucci????), you thank your fucking lucky stars you've got a near-permanent spot at the top of your heap, and take your lumps at the Oscars because we all know they suck always, all the time, with everybody.

BertoltNietzsche · #16 Post by **BertoltNietzsche** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:26 am

I've just watched this.

Clever and good entertainment. Engaging too. The last act felt a bit dragged and not handled very well. I think the strength of this film lies in its cleverness, and the fact that the film concentrates on being a good vintage mouse and cat game most of the time. So, I will try to think it in that context and try my best to outwit the filmmaker:

SpoilerShow

I don't wanna pick on little plot holes like police procedures, how Clive Owen knew when it was clear to walk out from his 'cell', how unrealistic it is to let Jodie Foster go into that situation etc etc, because it is only a movie and, for me, such 'holes' don't take away from my enjoyment of an entertainment film. Instead, I wanna pick on the character played by Denzel Washington, because I honestly think he could've been much more clever, in the way he handled the situation. I mean, I didn't see any expertise of his character in action.

If I was in his position, I'd have caught the 'bank robbers'. Perhaps not all of them, but one or two of them at least, using the following methods.

1. Tell me if I'm wrong, but the security camera had recorded everything before they were 'flashed-out'. The hostages agreed in their interrogations that four people came in with the painting suits on. Only one of them's face is caught on the camera (Clive Owen). Now, can't we look at the security tape, and identify the faces of the hostages who are NOT one of the four painters? All of the customers would have been caught on the cameras, and the employees should be known to each others. From here they can deduct four people (although they will be missing Clive) out of the suspects and label them as certainties.

2. Shoes. If I was in Denzel Washington's shoes (no pun intended), I'd have known, from the first two hostages who got out, that they are wearing their own shoes. Even though they were all masked and wearing the same painter's clothes, they were wearing different shoes. He should've noticed and remembered the shoes worn by the gun carriers while he briefly went inside. I mean, yes they are interchangeable, but the fits are different, and women's shoes (especially heels) should be really easy to tell from one another. This should be something too obvious for a real detective.

3. Clothes. The clothes the hostages have taken off. Return the clothes to the hostages. The ones who don't have any clothes are the criminals, unless they planned this too and put their own clothing inside the bags before they got to the bank.

4. Once the possible suspects are narrowed down using the above, I'd pretend I didn't find out anything and continue interrogating them. There we may possibly find out who is protecting whom. Once everything is clearer, let them loose and follow them discreetly. Voila, most of them should be identified and caught by now.

Do we really want to catch the bank robbers? I'd say yes, certainly. The fact that they were doing it against a Nazi war criminal does not hide the fact that they put many innocent lives in danger.

Although I was being picky, I definitely enjoyed the film. It was a good entertainment but there isn't a lot to think about a day after.

Antoine Doinel · #17 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:14 am

I absolutely loved this. Those who are saying this is Spike Lee's "least personal film to date" aren't looking close enough. Aside from the perfectly knotted plot, this movie has so many Lee touches it's hard to know where to begin.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!

How about the beautiful sequence when one of the hostages is shot and Denzel goes racing out of the police unit the bank? How about the interrogation scenes (that were some of the best moments of the entire movie) with Lee's trademark hard closeups. The location shooting was phenomenal bringing a New York that even other movies set in New York never aspire to, but that is classic Lee. Only Woody Allen is working on this kind of level (though I guess not anymore since Europe is his new playground). The performances were great -- Lee elevated what in other hands would be a standard bank heist flick into something more bringing issues of power, respect and race into play. Just because he didn't hit you over the head with it, doesn't mean it's not there. Great flick, one of the best of year so far.

souvenir · #18 Post by **souvenir** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:14 am

The child hostage from Brooklyn playing the "gangsta" video game was also classic Spike and reminded me of the scene in Clockers when the young child is playing a similar video game.

che-etienne · #19 Post by **che-etienne** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:56 pm

What a terrifically made movie. Even if the more metaphorical and politically pointed aspects of the film ring a little hollow in their didacticism, Spike adds enough real world texture and cynical comedy and irony to the film to nudge it a little into the realm of 'importance'. I have with this film gained new respect for Spike Lee, and intend to now go back and see all those films of his which I have overlooked and appraise them more fairly. I will admit to having been so blinded by superficial judgements of him as a man and a voice in the film business that I dismissed his oeuvre too readily. It is good to see a filmmaker creating a work of such maturity within the bounds of a studio heist movie. He truly transcends them here. And of course Washington is at a height here I'm not sure I've seen in a while. What I think I have most to thank Lee for is that he has reassured me that American cinema still has punch and personality.

Fletch F. Fletch · #20 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:36 pm

I just caught up with this one on DVD and enjoyed it thoroughly. As others have been saying, it is a very entertaining and engaging glossy B-movie in the possible sense.

I was surprised to learn that the gentleman who wrote it Russell Gewirtz was a first timer... Not bad for such intricately plotted, cleverly written movie!

I thought that Spike did an excellent job of establishing the rapport between Denzel Washington and Chiwetel Ejiofor (he such an interesting actor to watch) characters, showing the familiarity and verbal shorthand between them. They had superb chemistry together making it seem like they'd been partners for quite some time.

I loved the subplot that hinted at Washington's dirty background (Clive Owen's character even calls him Serpico at one point) and how Lee didn't rub it in our faces but subtly inserted here and there throughout the movie that made you question what his motivations were.

Jodie Foster was well cast as the uber professional fixer who is able to even influence the mayor and uses her influence to get past the police barricades. It was amusing to see her meet her match when she comes face to face with Owen who sees right through her.

I think that one of the joys of this movie is watching all of these A-listers bounce off one another... I mean, you have Willem Dafoe in a pretty minor role but he makes the most of his screen time as he hints at a little tension between him and Washington's character.

Very enjoyable movie.

AZAI · #21 Post by **AZAI** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:20 am

I just watched this last night and I was stunned by this particular reference, which I think is not an accident:

Antoine Doinel · #22 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:26 am

Wow, nice catch. Given the short time alotted for the Sikh's speech in the diner about racial profiling, it's probably very intentional.