INSIDE MAN (2006)

Directed by Spike Lee. Starring Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Willem Dafoe. Drama/Action.

Synopsis: A seasoned hostage negotiator, under suspicion of wrongdoing himself, is assigned to a very unusual and drawn out robbery and hostage situation at a tony bank in Manhattan. However, it gradually becomes apparent that this bank heist is not what it seems, and there are interests at work other than just the money in the bank and the hostages whose freedom has been taken.

This film is a different type of movie from what you would expect on two fronts: its a "heist" movie, but set forth in a much different, non-chronological way; and it is another different type of movie for filmmaker Spike Lee.

A quick glance at any trailer or dvd box cover will tell you that this is an extrememly heavyweight cast, headed by a couple of Oscar Winners who can make arguments as to being the best actor/actress, respectively, of their generations, not to mention box office gurantees, and they are not the have of it, as the entire primary cast, even those in subordinate roles, is filled by top shelf actors/stars.

Inside Man doesn't waste any time getting into the plot and, in what some may find a negative, does not spend much time on background to both major and minor plot points, keeping the story fast paced. I don't know that this is really an action movie, it may really be a character driven drama/mystery in action film's clothing.

The main protagonist of the story is Det. Frazier (Denzel Washington Man on Fire, Remember The Titans), a hostage negotiation specialist who we find out may be under the gun for embesslement of some funds, though we don't ever hear the details of this, nor is it ever visited in any way other than reference by the characters. His partner is Detective Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor Four Brothers, Amistad), and the receive a call that a bank in tony Manhattan is in the process of being robbed. Viewing this as both their job and a chance at redempetion before its needed, they head out there only to find that it is not the traditional kind of a bank robbery.

For starters, the robbers don't seem to be in any particular hurry, and also seem to have thought of every possible factor, including police procedure, prior to going in. The movie unfolds for us, of course, in a divided way, some scenes with the cops, other with the robbers who, at the very beginning of the heist, make all of the customers and bank employees disrobe and then dress in the same clothing...which also matches that of the robbers. Clearly we see, as do the cops, that these folks are just a little bit different.

As viewers, we never really see all of the robbers, except the leader, Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), but even he is hidden behind sunglasses and a hood for a good part of the film. A key side story to the heist is the founder of the bank, Arthur Chase (Christopher Plummer Malcolm X, Somewhere In Time), who is way more worried about a personal belonging(s) he has in a safe deposit box than he is about any possible theft to his bank or injury to his employees & customers (presumably he has insurance). To help secure his personal and secret interest, he recruits a high octane, yet shadowy figure (Jodie Foster Contact, Silence of the Lambs ) whose job is best describe as a fixer of problems...for the rich and powerful.

Thought this side story is interesting and key to the film, it, again, is not really developed or fully explained, nor do I think that was an accident, ommission, or victim of editing. I got the feeling that the story was intended to come off as, in an interesting way, somewhat vague and mysterious. There is enough, however, for the viewer to full in the holes with his/her own interpretation of swome things and motivations. I will say that I found one big hole in the plot, though. Without spoiling it for the uninitiated into this flick, the object that Chase is worried about keeping secret is evidence of his dealing with some pretty big criminals from a long time ago. In fact, it is implied that those dealings gave him some "seed money" to start the bank and do a lot of his philantrhroic deeds. I know you're with me on this one: why not just destroy the evidence? Keeping it, anywhere, no matter how safe you might think it is, means that it is possible it will be discovered. Also, the robbers seem to have knowledge of this item...how did they know about it and is it really their desired intention in robbing the bank? Again, not crystal clear from the script, and kind of murky to figure out on our own with what we are given.

The story does not always follow a chronological order, but its not the last/first/middle type concept that say, Tarantino does in many of his flicks, but the tactic of interspersing flashforwards that are the detectives interviews with some of the bank customers-which obviously had to occur after the heist was over- with the unfolding of the heist and the story itself. You see, again not to be a spolier, but the way it unfolds, some of the robbers come out in the end with the customers/employees, but due to the way that the heist unfolded, and the sharp techniques employed by the robbers...the detectives are not sure who is who, and neither is almost anyone else.

The acting, as you might guess, is subperb, with special props having to go to Owen. How many big stars would take a role where their face is covered 2/3 of the time they are onscreen? Further to that, he does a great job as the smart, cool, suave mastermind. Denzel is wonderful in a somewhat familiar role for him, and his scenes with Jodie Foster are very good, as two actors who have to be known in the industry for making their coutnerparts disappear on screen face off for some good give and take. Christopher Plummer was born to play Chase. 

I do feel the talents of Ejiofor and Willem Dafoe (Spiderman, Platoon) were underutilized, but when you have this many good actors, all who are capable and have, carried a major film on their own, some are going to be less important, its still good to see them and they don't disappoint.

Suprisingly, Inside Man is also heavy on the laughs for its genre, with plenty of one liners, some of them they type that you might say, "I've got to remember that one".  This is a very different type of movie that is well acted, directed, and pays noticeable homage to the king of the genre, Dog Day Afternoon.   I think this flick will work for a lot of people, but will be flameout for others, especially those who , for whatever reason, have a problem with the director or feel he should only do certain types of films.

It worked for me.

For what that's worth.