Inside

Dafoe is excellent in this film. If you are a fan of his, I would definitely give this one a chance. The story is quite meandering at times due to a relatively plotless script, but I have to admit, when Dafoe gets to shine, he is impossible to take your eyes off from. I wish the thematic elements regarding "art is for keeps" was more consistent throughout the piece, and I wish some side characters weren't just throw away characters to expand the run time. This takes place in one location. If you don't like those types of movies or have no interest in Willem Dafoe as an actor, you really don't need to watch this one. Oh, and shout out to the pigeon for contributing to one of the funniest scenes of the year.

As the headline states, I expected more from this film since it's basically a one-man-show starring the extremely charismatic and talented Willem Dafoe. Based on the premise of the man trapped on the inside, I made the assumption that we would spend 90 minutes on the edge of my seat. With such a great setup and potential for suspense, this film's low energy, and plodding pace were a huge letdown. There were an excess of long, low key, environmental shots, which may have been intended to be "artistic", but had little artistic impact, and only contributed to the movie's slow pacing and rhythm. Personally, this is a movie I MIGHT watch at home, but definitely not worth a watch in the theater.

A high-end art thief becomes trapped inside a luxury, high-tech penthouse in New York's Times Square after his heist doesn't go as planned. Locked inside with nothing but priceless works of art, he must use all his cunning and invention to survive.

If you've seen the trailer, Inside is exactly what you think it is: a man trapped in a high-end condo with no avenues of escape. The no-frills, approach to the story hits the ground running with Willem DaFoe's Nemo trapped within the first 10 minutes. These 10 minutes are enough to establish the only necessaries the audience needs: art thief, in a penthouse loaded with expensive artwork, owner out of the country. The other 95 minutes showcase Nemo's ingenuity, his many setbacks, and his decaying thought process as the penthouse deteriorates into a wasteland of filth, a visual representation of his mental state. As a one man show, it's incredible to watch DaFoe's Nemo work through his obstacles and observe how he navigates his failures. As a movie, it's longer than it needs to be, wearing its premise thin before Nemo reaches his final conclusion.

Willem DaFoe is a one man force in this movie. While it's been done countless times throughout cinema to varying degrees (Sam Rockwell in Moon, Redford in All Is Lost, Tom Hardy in Locke), the concept of seeing only one person on the screen for the vast majority of the performance is a tall task for an actor and DaFoe's slow descent into madness is expertly conveyed. An actor who's shown multiple times over his career to play characters that are a bit unhinged or or coming apart at the scenes, DaFoe calls upon those past roles to portray a man losing his grip on reality the more desperate he becomes. The internet loves to poke fun at DaFoe's crazy eyes and wild performances, and Inside shows just how good he is with these types of roles.

Directed by first time director Vasilis Katsoupis, Inside shows promise in an interesting directing career while also displaying some flaws. A one person story that carries across an feature length runtime is a difficult enough feat for a veteran storyteller; Katsoupis tackles it right out of the gate. Inside is highlighted by its minimalist nature; the only things the viewer has to focus on is Willem DaFoe and the penthouse. To its credit, the production design is well thought out, lending a sense of someone with far too much money having just enough items scattered about to give Nemo a fighting chance at survival. Katsoupis and screenwriter Ben Hopkins dole out enough small victories (and a number of setbacks) to keep audiences baited and rooting for the thief.

Overall, Inside is a decent feature debut from Katsoupis. At 105 minutes, the pacing drags at times due to not having enough material to justify its runtime. Had 15-20 minutes been shaved from the story, viewers would've experienced a much more lean, faster moving story of a man desperate to escape. As it stands, though, it's a great vessel to spotlight Willem DaFoe's talents and let him shine. Great production design, an intriguing premise, and an actor talented enough to hold the audience's attention for the majority of the time, the film is good enough weeknight watch after work.

It started off intriguing, suspenseful, and interesting, but then it started to become stale, repetitive, bland, with improbable circumstances, absence of logic, and riddled with plot and technical issues.

And after a slowly paced 100 minutes of an incredible performance by DaFoe - the only reason I kept watching, the ending is not worth the ink the convoluted lazy screenplay was written with. It's all filler with very little substance, and merits no rhyme or reason this film was even made. It just all fades away as a waste of DaFoe's talents, and my invested time to watch this nonsense with hopes of some sort of grand finale.

Classified as a psychological artsy-type thriller, there's been many films like this done before and much better. As the second only film directed, produced and (co-)written film by Vasilis Katsoupis, his work was impressive, especially his camera shots, close-ups and angle choices. He captured the very best of DaFoe's talents. But Katsoupis could only do so much with Ben Hopkins' screenplay. Had Hopkins put more structure to the story, better plot development, and given us a more concrete conclusion, this film could've easily been more compelling than contrived. Sadly the results as-is, are a huge disappointment and I can't recommend this at all. It's a very generous 5/10, all going to DaFoe and Katsoupis doing their best with the terrible script they had to work with.

"Inside" holds great potential in its opening act, successfully capturing the viewer's attention with its intriguing premise. However, as the narrative progresses, it falls short of expectations, leaving the audience disillusioned. The proficient acting of Willem Dafoe serves as a beacon of hope, pulling the audience back into the story with his unpredictable character choices.

Regrettably, the film takes a sharp turn in the third act, as the plot unravels into complete incoherence. The final act takes place in a "Smart Home," and despite claims of the film being a work of art, the storyline fails to elicit any interest or excitement from the audience, ultimately resulting in a lackluster experience.

The potential displayed in the beginning is ultimately not realized, and the film leaves much to be desired. While the standout performance of Dafoe offers a glimmer of hope, the nonsensical and tedious nature of the latter part of the film leaves a lot to be desired.