Review of Inside Man (2006) by David U — 11 May 2012

I love how Wikipedia described this film's sudden turn into a study of corruption, prejudice and multiculturalism "unexpected". Come on guys, this is Spike Lee we're talking about; you really didn't see that coming? Maybe it would have been more unexpected if Ron Howard directed this, as planned, even if his actual 2006 film gave us enough of a surprise by showing us just how bad he can mess up on something potentially good, yet as things stand, this is exactly what you would expect from Spike Lee, because he sure loves his criticism on corruption and prejudice; certainly more than he loves editors. Actually, it's more a love-hate thing between him and his editors, because there will be points where he just gets rid of them until the movie gets all nice and overlong, and then he'll bring them back in to annoyingly overedit a few things. Hey, it's all a part of his exhausting style, so I'm just gonna go a head and let him do whatever, because it seems to be working for him just fine, seeing as how he's still getting a lot of critical praise for doing much of the same, as well as "a lot" of stars among his cast. Granted, the biggest names in the cast are either people that'll work with just about everyone or have become so obscure that they're just looking for a break back out (Sorry, Willem), but hey, just as long as they're here and get to act, that's just fine with me. Still, for every move that Mr. Lee pulls that's as good as it always is, he's got a move that's as problematic as it always is.

The film isn't as overstylized as your typical stylish Spike Lee joint (Yes, I said it); in fact, its such moments of overstylizing as the over-saturated and somewhat gratuitously inserted interview sequences - which go additionally plagued by such time-wasters as absurdly cuttable casual conversation between the hostages and Denzel Washington's interviewing Detective Keith Frazier character - are quite rare, yet they are there, and they add some inconsistency to the tone, while their being plopped in with such suddenness after long periods of absence makes the transition extra jarringly offputting. Still, note that I said that it's not only the overstylizing within those interview scenes that's unnecessary, but also their insertion, because while the moments of excess fat around the edges of the film, they are present and slow down the film's momentum quite a bit for a moment. Still, those pieces of excess fat aren't quite as forced as the social subtext that the critics seem to be singing as much praise for as they usually do when talking about a Spike Lee effort, something I can rarely grasp, as much of the subtext feels so very forced in, like a lot of pieces of social subtext in films by Lee; and also like a lot of films by Spike Lee, the subtlety in that subtext has moments where it lapses so startlingly drastically that, for a moment, the film genuinely feels incompetent, almost to point of the being - yes, I'm gonna say this when refering to Spike Lee's general catalogue of films - dumb. We're talking people of different ethnicities going on rants, some corruption and even a scene where - so help me, I'm not even mildly kidding - Clive Owen's Dalton Russell character, while in the process of robbing the bank, practically waves his finger at a little boy for playing a violent video game (By the ways, it's a fake video game, and if nothing else tells you that, then it's the fact that it's so surrealistically unsubtle) before saying that he wants to talk to the boy's father about how violent entertainment can ruin his child's mind, and regardless of how I make it sound, those aspects could have fit organically and stood as effective, yet are just a few examples of Lee's good intentions falling embarassingly flat as highly unsubtle. Still, as much as I complain about the overstylized and superfluous moments, at least they give the film a moment of dynamicity, because so much of the film gets to be repetitious, not so much in that it falls into the same exact plot point over and over again, but that it rarely shifts in tone and hardly shifts in events. Plenty of plot points fail to differ terribly from each other, and some don't differ at all in mood, leaving long periods of the film to feel the same until steam finds itself lost here and there. What we're looking at here is a film-oh, sorry, I mean "joint" that's as spotty as your usual effort by Spike Lee, and yet, at the same time, it remains ultimately as rewarding as your usual effort by Spike Lee, because for every improvable decision made Lee, there's one that's right on the money.

While the overstylizing is still very much there, Spike Lee has always had a great taste in style, and here, that is, well, a bit of a bit of an exception, but only in that the cinematography is less than great. It's still quite good, with some handsome grit about it that catches your eye, yet still goes pulled back just enough to give at least most scenes just enough non-artistry to provide some wiggle room for the intensity to further flourish, and boy, is there plenty of intensity here to go around, even without the supplementary stylizing. The film wastes no time in getting your pulse racing with the "Cellphone Scene", which really set consequence and fiery, unrelenting intensity, or at least until some white guy's cellphone ringtone turns out to be Kanye West's "Gold Digger", a discovery that kind of stopped the tension cold. Of course, what happens after that ringtone thankfully shuts off, things go back to being hardcore, and after that, there are few, if any hitches in the following tense sequences, of which, there are plenty, as you find yourself feeling as though your trapped with the hostages, facing dangerous and unpredictable brutes. Spike Lee is certainly no terribly spectacular filmmaker, yet he has his golden moments in every film, and that is no different in this thriller that his golden moments of hardcore tension to break up consistent engagement, even with the film's moments of steam-loss, and steadily builds on that intrigue more and more as you find yourself pulled deeper and deeper, wondering just what in the world is to happen next in this ever-unraveling thrill ride. Still, Lee is not the only person to thank for that, because with a cast filled with this much talent, don't expect anyone to go to a lot of waste, except maybe the underused Jodie Foster, yet, even then, she was playing Jodie Foster, so it's no tremendous loss. Seriously though, even down to the hostages, expect much memorable distinctiveness and human emotional range to earn your investment, but expect to be captivated most by the admittedly underwritten, yet still delivering leads of Denzel Washington - as a clever and calm, yet still very human figure of justice that inevitably finds himself stuck by this all but hopeless situation - and Clive Owen - as an intelligent, yet still very dangerously unpredictable and layered man that could very well stand as far more than meets the eye -, both of whom are charismatic, with tense chemistry between each other and the rest of the cast, breathing humanity into the atmosphere and further intensifying every bit of charm or tension that helps in making this film more enthralling than not.

In conclusion, the film hits the occasional moment of overstylizing and tremendous lapses in subtlety and evenness in the social subtext, as well as more common moments of tonal and, sometimes, situational repetition that leaves the film's steam to dilute here and there, yet never to where your lost, as you're frequently engaged by the sometimes overbearing, but generally neat style, as well as really gripped by the golden moments of heavy tension that breaks up constant intrigue that, while supplemented by across-the-board strong and humanly involving performances, makes "Inside Man" a consistently enthralling thriller that entertains, tenses up and ultimately rewards the audience.

3/5 - Good.