L'informateur

This is a decent but not particularly memorable movie. I thought that Denzel Washington was pretty good, but he seems to have settled into a type. Confident and unyielding and always right (Coach Boone from Remember the Titans). This is fine and I enjoy watching him. This movie is about a bank robbery where the perpetrators are after more than money. It has to do with a righteous cause, but what happens is that the possibility of pulling it off and getting what they want is on such fragile ground that you need to ask the question, "Isn't there an easier way?" Anyway, the scenes in the bank are quite good but we really need to extend our disbelief at times. I've always wondered about that "get me a plane and a million dollars" business anyway. Well, there's a lot more to it than that. See this and enjoy the characters, but in the long run, it's pretty far fetched.

'Inside Man' engages the viewer from the opening scene through the credits. One of the better Heist films one can watch, with an all-star cast of highly-accomplished actors delivering the goods. Recommended viewing!

No ordinary film maker, Lee taps his expertise in film making, applying superior cinematography, editing, and direction skills.

Headlining the film is Denzel Washington as the good guy cop, and Clive Owen as the highly intelligent robber (with the screen-play thankfully avoiding the crazy/insane cliche' Bond movie villain characterization).

"Filling-in" as good as one will find in bank robber caper films are the superior supporting cast performances of Christopher Plummer (who has never delivered anything sub-par in his career), Jodie Foster (effectively playing against her "type"), Willem Dafoe (over-due for an Oscar), Chiwetel Ejiofor (perfect subtle side-arm detective partner to Denzel), and across the board good performances by the entire supporting ensemble cast.

Lee doesn't try to play out the big surprise ending cliche', but instead allows one to piece things together as the film unfolds, letting us "in" to the narrative piece by piece. This is refreshing and elevates the film overall.

Really hard to find any critical piece missing in the film. Editing and pacing excellent, and even the potentially preposterous story idea works. Yes there are a few "identifying the magician's tricks" moments inside what could have been a perceived as an over the top narrative, but one overlooks those because this is quite the entertaining film and it is put together so well - Witty dialogue delivered by some of the all-time great actors who were perfectly cast on their parts.

Bravo to all concerned👏, and two thumbs up!👍👍

Whether I was into the subject or not, there's always a filmmaker at work in a Spike Lee film... he's one moviemaker who never loses sight of being a filmmaker first and foremost, and he's absolutely outdone himself with INSIDE MAN, a taut thriller which avoids the colloquialism that alienated mainstream audiences from some of his earlier work.

If you've seen the trailer or heard anything about this pic, you have been misled. Everything I heard left me feeling like yeah, OK, I'm going for Denzel. Denzel vs. Clive Owen will be interesting.

From the first shots and opening credits, you are submerged in artistic vision, and a finely honed piece of work the likes of which I haven't seen in years. I'd almost give this one a ten.. and I don't hand out tens freely. I do not want to spoil this. You have to walk in cold, and let this film grab you by the short and curlies.

This is one film where there isn't a spare frame or wasted cheap shot. Every zinger zings, and there are laughs too, laughs at merciful intervals to break the tension and remind an audience on the edges of its seats that movie-going's supposed to be entertaining, dammit. The cinematography is brilliant, and the music is fantastic - true cinematic score, true genius. I can't praise this one enough.

Christopher Plummer is superb, in what is (perhaps coincidentally) an ironic bit of casting. Jodie Foster rises to a challenging persona with aplomb and ease, and my only complaint of the entire exercise is that her character's name 'Madeline White' is perhaps a little cliché. Beyond that, there isn't a filmmaker alive who brings New York to the screen with anything approximating Spike Lee's vision.

It seems there hasn't been a lot of junket for this one, and that Spike Lee's presence has been downplayed... as if the studio downplayed the fact that this is a Spike Lee film slightly, until the word was out that this film is over and beyond what an audience might already expect from one of his films.

So... let me just say.. man o man this is a cinematic mind-blowing amazing one and a half hours... it's brilliant, tight, funny, articulate, intense, and high time the academy gives Spike Lee some respect.

An ordinary day in a major bank, a man dressed as a painter walks in and points torches at the CCTV cameras. Seconds later more people dressed as painters burst in and announce their intentions to all inside. As the hostages are professionally moved into a group and made to dress in the same suits as the robbers, the alarm is raised by a passing cop. For Detective Frazier this is just what he needs to help take his mind off accusations of corruption and girlfriend stress. With a by-the-book hostage situation in front of him things look good but internal and external pressures soon convince him that things are not as straightforward as he first thought.

With the trailer offering a great Saturday night, twisty crime thriller, a heavy cast and a strange directorial choice in Lee, this was a film I was hoping would be glossy, slick, silly and fun. However, although I enjoyed it for what it was, I must confess that the lack of consistent direction and pace made it more difficult to get into than I had hoped. It isn't like this at first, with the film jumping right into a very slick taking of the bank and establishing a professional group of thieves to content with. Bringing in Frazier continues this delivery because he has a good swagger to him and it looked like they would pull off this film. You see, things like this need pace and energy and direction – like sharks, they need to keep moving forward or they die; they die by letting the audience question things or move back off the edge of their seat to a vantage point of criticism. With things like Phone Booth, we were never allowed to step back and thus it worked; however here it tries to do other things (to its credit) but these produce an irregular pace, inconsistent tone and tend to take away from the central, gripping action without putting in more than they take out.

It still works but it steps away from the robbery too often to touch on other areas. Now these areas could have been a great compliment to the main thread but they don't work as well as they should. The external pressures from Madeline White should have increased the tension in the film but instead they were mostly separate – interesting still but not complimentary. It doesn't help that many of the twists are obvious (certainly the reason for the robbery was obvious – even if it is never actually explained or justified that well) and when the final one does come it is delivered too slowly and reduces its impact. The film is funny and this works quite nicely without slowing things down. The device of the interviews as jumps forward is interesting but unfortunately it tells the audience too much and spoils some of the later action by making it too predictable. Like I said, I still enjoyed it but at times I found myself bothered by the impression that it was a genre movie actively trying not to be a genre movie and only hurting itself in the progress.

Visually the film is impressive even if occasionally it felt inappropriate for the material. The movement of the camera, the lush shots of New York, the "chest-cam" shots and the use of music are all unmistakably Spike Lee and it looks great for it. At times it is a bit obtrusive and almost feels too grand for the material but it is hard to criticise a great director (which is what I personally think Lee is) for having his own style and feel, even if at times he is a fault for reducing the pace and energy of the material. He shows that, although his personal films are more interesting, he can do a good job as director-for-hire as well. The cast are impressive on paper but the delivery means they are not all that good. Foster is a good example, she is a solid presence but her material is weak and half-done and I personally felt she could have been totally removed from the film without any great detriment. Washington is cool in the lead and gives a lively genre performance. The film suggests that he thought he was doing more than just a genre film and there are bits of his character that don't work – his eclectic wardrobe is one but his past and his girlfriend are also threads that don't work that well. Owen is lucky enough to have the best material and despite a so-so accent he does convince and drives the film forward. His motivations and background are annoying question marks but this is not his fault – it is the fault of the delivery that let me question things rather than rushing forward at full speed. Ejiofor is good and works well despite having little to work with. Dafoe is a nice addition but I did feel his material could have been done by someone less famous just as well as he did. Plummer starts the film with such an air of a "powerful old man with sinister secret" that you never doubt for second where the film is taking him – again not all his fault but he is not used at all well.

Despite all my misgivings, the film did do enough to engage me and entertain me on a Saturday night as I suspect it will many viewers. However in the cold light of day the film does have threads that don't work and problems relating to pacing and inconsistency in tone. Funnily enough it is actually the irregular pace that reveals the problems whereas it is had played itself as a straight genre film then it would have covered these with pace and energy. Worth seeing but by not being a straight genre film it manages to be both stronger and weaker at the same time.

Let me just lay all my cards on the table, so there are no surprises later in the review: "Inside Man" is frustratingly bad, Spike Lee was the wrong director for this, but I was able to walk away still a fan of Clive Owen, Denzel Washington, and Jodie Foster. This is a bizarre film, unnecessarily complicated, that assembles a top-notch cast, puts them into a tense situation with all the players in place, and then has nothing to do with them. It's like the writer forgot that you needed a third act; it's all rising action with no denouement.

Washington plays Det. Frazier, a hostage negotiator who acts, literally, as if this is his first case. He has the obligatory younger partner (Chiwetel Ejiofor, "Serenity") who exists so Frazier can explain his theories and the obligatory ESU commander who wants to go in and shoot everyone (Willem Dafoe, sadly underused). Owen plays the bank robber, about whom frustratingly nothing is known except what he said into the camera in the trailer. Finally, Foster plays some sort of player amongst the Powers That Be who walks into the mayor's office, demands an update, and is given "every possible courtesy", etc. She serves no purpose whatsoever, not even in a clichéd action movie type of way like Dafoe and Ejiofor. The performances are the only good part of the movie, but there are times when you can tell that the actors wished they were in a better film. They're giving it their all, and they're getting no help from anyone else involved.

Spike Lee is up to his usual tricks here, which, in this type of movie, is a very bad thing. The details of the heist itself I won't disclose. I can't. The action is, at best, vague - extremely brief scenes of vaults opening, hole-digging, hostage roughing up, and the usual bank-robber stuff are all the details we really get. It is also inter cut with scenes of the hostages recalling the heist; their recollections serve no purpose except to confuse the audience further. "Inside Man" is curiously racist: the white crooks rough up the black bank customers, the white Foster and the mayor order around Washington, the white cops mistake a Sikh for an Arab and beat him, and even a Jewish hostage was not only a lawyer, but has a nephew who is a jeweler. Washington and Ejiofor are given no flaws whatsoever and are seen mostly being pushed around by everyone else in the movie. The action repeatedly grinds to a halt so Lee can insert quirky little subplots involving video games, Washington's much younger girlfriend and random Albanian women. They're at best unnecessary, at worst, disastrous. If we had been given a director with more focus, there is the feeling that this could have been a lean, mean thriller. But it drags and drags and drags and when we get to the end, we understand why the film stalled for so long: the ending is about as climatic as erectile dysfunction.

"Inside Man" looked like it had it all - great cast, good concept, reputable director, but the end result is a near-disaster. It's like someone threw "Dog Day Afternoon" into a blender, drank it, and vomited it back onto the screen. As I stumbled out of the theater, deprived of my money and time, I cursed the screen gods who thought to tease me with such an improbably bad movie. I thought back to a better day, when a movie at least knew what was going on even if the audience didn't, gave us characters who seemed like actual people and served actual purposes to the plot, so that even if we had to wait until the Big Twist to answer our questions, we at least had a reason to still care.