This will be short. I was underwhelmed by "Inside Man." I wanted to like it. It's not bad. It's just that it's not that good. Denzel Washington is terrific, as always. I found Jodie Foster to be annoying and plastic, but then, that's what her role called for. The movie just wasn't satisfying. It lacked something though I'm not sure what, maybe a good middle and end.


Aside:
The theater at which I saw the film often has technical difficulties. The music was off this time. Music was not playing under every scene. When it came time for the music to come up, it did so at a slow speed. It sounded like a 45 rpm record played at 33-1/3 speed. Draggy and distracting. The voices were OK, it was only the music. After a few seconds it got up to speed. It happened again and again. I let the manager know and got a free ticket. But at that theater, you always take your chances on just how well you'll actually see or hear the film.

I agree, I was not that impressed either, although I thought Clive Owen was very entertaining. At least Jodie Foster broke out of her mainstream mother in crisis rut (see: Panic Room, Flightplan).

I'm not surprised at the posted reviews here. I saw it with five other people on Saturday and I was the only one that truly liked the movie. Everyone else didn't hate it, but wasn't overly impressed by it.

I think it's a matter of marketing expectation: the ads make it seem to be more of an action movie with lots of thrills, twists, turns, etc. The universal comment was that the movie was "slow."

I liked it because the movie didn't show everything, didn't answer everything and led you along without treating the audience like a bunch of idiots.

SPOILER ALERT

My only problem with the movie is the MacGuffin could've been dealt with a long, long time ago. Without that paper (which is cleverly edited out in the trailers and clips as seen on E&R) the movie doesn't have a plot. Scriptwriters should realize this and work in one line, one hook that explains why it is still around. Christopher Plummer's character could've said he kept it as a reminder until his penance was completed. He didn't and therefore allowed the story to proceed.

SPOILER ALERT

My only problem with the movie is the MacGuffin could've been dealt with a long, long time ago. Without that paper (which is cleverly edited out in the trailers and clips as seen on E&R) the movie doesn't have a plot. Scriptwriters should realize this and work in one line, one hook that explains why it is still around. Christopher Plummer's character could've said he kept it as a reminder until his penance was completed. He didn't and therefore allowed the story to proceed.[/align]

ADDENDUM TO SCOTT'S SPOILER ALERT:












This has to be the last movie taking place in the present in which a living Nazi collaborator/Holocaust participant plays a role. Christopher Plummer would have to have been nearing 90 or more. When you think about it, it just doesn't gel.

ADDENDUM TO SCOTT'S SPOILER ALERT:












This has to be the last movie taking place in the present in which a living Holocaust participant plays a role. Christopher Plummer would have to have been nearing 90 or more. When you think about it, it just doesn't gel.

Though, if he was in his early 20's and quite the opportunist, it does work. He'd be in his mid 80's and still in charge of his own bank.

ADDENDUM TO SCOTT'S SPOILER ALERT:












This has to be the last movie taking place in the present in which a living Holocaust participant plays a role. Christopher Plummer would have to have been nearing 90 or more. When you think about it, it just doesn't gel.

Well, let's ponder deeply, Maggers. Doesn't lore tell us that the Wandering Jew--Ahasuerus?--will live until Jesus returns? A stone-serious Orthodox hombre once assured me that the Wandering Jew helped some souls escape from Dachau. When I asked, in an innocent and curious way, if that doesn't validate Christianity, the guy explained in some highly-evolved gobbledegook, that while Ahasuerus was real, Christianity was most certainly =not= validated. I lost the thread of his argument when he started quoting Talmud in Hebrew. Guess my scholarship could stand some improvement.:confused:

Though, if he was in his early 20's and quite the opportunist, it does work. He'd be in his mid 80's and still in charge of his own bank.

MORE SPOILER ALERTS...

















Mid-80's is nearing 90. But going forward it's going to be hard to use the old chestnut of Nazi collaborator living in 2006 in fear of exposure and make it believeable.

There was not enough hubbub for me to thoroughly enjoy this flick. I saw it yesterday, but I thoroughly enjoyed the acting. Critics overrated the plot, which was predictable, not at all twisty as I was led to believe. The Albanian scene for instance was foreseeable, but the way the actors played it out was enjoyable.

Spoilers below:















When the bank robbers threatened the hostages but didn't follow through on their threats, I knew they were bluffing. And if you saw the Bill Murray movie about the bank robbery where he's dressed as a clown, then you pretty much saw this movie. But Bill Murray's bank robbery movie was better because it had a great performance by Tony Shaloub.

AC

P.S. Jodie Foster sure looked nice in that tight dress.

Today I saw it in a theatre, and I enjoyed it.

Casting was perfect. Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Clive Owen....Who'd complain to them?

"Inside Man" was taut with tension, spiced nicely with interesting dialogue, and rich "inside" circumstances that give its characters a more believable and enjoyable life on screen. Though supposedly a serious drama about a negotiator and a clever hostage-taking bank-robber, but sometimes I could see humor.

The twisted ending is tempting anytime. I've ever seen like that ending scene in "The Usual Suspects". I was shown things from the first scene on that don't make sense until the end. By then, I realised that while I may not have figured it all out, I've had a great time trying.

"Inside Man" is an entertainment film, but on the other hand, this movie provided much food for thought. One is about race. For example, a turban-wearing hostage released by the robbers is mistaken for an Arab and is roughed up by the police. They take away his turban and refuse to give it back, even as the man explains that he is an American and is required by his religion to wear the turban. He complained being mistaken for an Arab, so Denzel Washington said, "Yes, but you can always get a cab". This theme about race was also used in another masterpiece film "Crash". Well.........."Inside Man" is Spike Lee's film, so it came as no surprise to me.

Er, people, can we get back to Jodie Foster in a tight dress please. Whenever your ready, you know.

(Whisper, She's not really gay is she?)