davidcarniglia A compelling heist movie with some unique twists. Fairly even performances, especially from Washington and Plummer. There's some clever plot devices; the foreshadowing, though a bit confusing, adds energy, and builds anticipation . Forcing the hostages to dress like the robbers was a great idea, as it made the subsequent escape plausible. Since no one knew what the robbers looked like, interrogating the bus load of hostages became a frustrating exercise for Washington and his cohorts. The robbers treated the hostages better than the police. That blurring of good guy/bad guy divides our sympathy between Washington and Owen.That leaves room for the Nazi-collaborator Arthur Case (Plummer) to emerge as the actual bad guy. The 'robbers' only steal incriminating evidence to blackmail Plummer. But why not break in at night so they don't have to fuss with fifty hostages and a ton of cops? I guess we had to make room for Jodie Foster.Her role makes no sense. She takes over an enormous police situation, with no standing or credentials. That snapped my suspension of disbelief. If she were the mayor, and insinuated herself into the crisis, it might just add up. As far as the police are concerned, she should be no more than just another onlooker. Exposing a war criminal is sufficient motive for Owen to go after Plummer; we don't need a whole subplot with Foster to establish that. She goes through her many scenes with a smug grin, lapsing into nearly incomprehensible mumbling too often. Maybe give her Washington's role and she what she does with it.As others have said, though Washington's Frazier is jovial, his demeanor fits. He's overwhelmed by the situation: his humor springs from exasperation, not over-confidence. That he relishes his advantage over Plummer in their last meeting is all the more convincing, as he's been successively surprised, scrutinized, dismissed, ignored, and even under suspicion.One of his surprises came from the captain. I can't understand why he would just smile and say the whole deal is no big thing: no one hurt, nothing of (monetary) value taken, no suspects, no crime. That's absurd. Toy guns and fake murders or not, taking a heap of hostages, roughing up some of them, turning out half the police in the city, disrupting business, etc., are all crimes of some sort.That the actual pilfering of the incriminating documents has a beneficial ulterior motive is beside the point. Does the captain have some ulterior motive too? What's the point of some misdeed hanging over Frazier? Thankfully, we have fairly slick pacing, cool dialogue, and enough good plot bits. The kid describing his sadistic video game to Owen, and the irritable construction worker going on about his Albanian ex-wife are gems.In addition to Foster's underdeveloped character, there's a non-existent back story. By passing up Owen's planning of the crime, the film leaves out a crucial element of the heist genre. Owen's motivation makes sense, but why is he interested in Nazi war criminals? He's a few generations distant from WWII. And, what of his three accomplices? Why did they throw in with him? It would've made more sense if they were in it for the money; have a real robbery for them, and the war crimes documents for Owen.Inside Man left detours and dead ends, but entertained all the same.

betty dalton Seen this bank heist movie several times now. And during the first time I was rather pleasantly surprised by the plot. The second time around however the credibility of the story fell somewhat flat. It just wasnt very believable at crucial moments. Who cares that the story is somewhat unbelievable? Well I do. The movie is made in such a way that they want you to believe it could be a true story. Well then they better ought to get their act together as a writer and as a director. And they didnt. They failed at the credibiltity of the story. But what the heck, for a nice long 2 hours I got entertained anyway, although I got somewhat frustrated with the lack of credibility of the story as well... The story is about gangster mastermind Clive Owen who robs a huge bank and takes dozens of hostages. Escape from seems impossible, being surrounded by the entire New York police force. How will he be able to steal the money and find a way to escape from the bank? That's the suspense. And that suspense is managed very effectively, because you keep guessing till the very end HOW Clive Owen will get away with a seemingly impossible bankheist. That is what makes this movie very enjoyable. Next to the great acting.Saw some great actors: Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Clive Owen and Christopher Plummer. They all act really well. I mean really good. How couldnt it have been? These are the best that Hollywood has to offer. And they deliver. As I said, it is a very enjoyable suspenseful story when you watch if for the first time. Even then, you certainly must not be too critical of certain flaws in the credibility of the story at the end.

akil_burton Excellent movie with a great plot twist. They should make this a trilogy!

merelyaninnuendo Inside ManThe sense of urgency is kept alive throughout the course of the feature that helps the audience reach to the climax swiftly which may come off as a bit poignant, hoax and unsatisfactory too (for some viewers) but it surely is undeniably entertaining. Spike Lee's execution skills is what holds this tale with multiple characters that even though has "seen-this-seen-that" screenplay by Russell Gewirtz and predictable twists, still delivers. Denzel Washington and Clive Owen are convincing in their parellel roles that portrays two sides of the coin and is supported with a great cast like Christopher Plummer, Jodie Foster and Willem Dafoe. Inside Man hits hard and fast in its first act where the writing doesn't flinch on taking bold risks which keeps the viewers on the edge of the seat and even though the last act is a bit slow, one can always root for Denzel and his amusing conversations that is smartly written with other characters.