Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Inside Man (2006)
6/10
Never exhilarating , yet constantly engrossing
1 May 2006
Inside Man is one of the cleverest, classiest Hollywood movies in a long time, yet it never really get's terribly exciting, nor terribly bad. It seems for the most part to be a damn good, damn interesting entertainment. Most of the reasons, for those who's like to know, come from the fact that it's directed by Spike Lee, a man not completely at home with doing Hollywood mainstream pictures. As a result nothing is really as it seems in Inside Man, nor really does the film know what it is. Is it a thriller? Is it a drama? Is it a racial/political dissection of society today (a subject it bizarrely delves into)? In fact Inside Man is rare breed of cross-genre cinema. Still with us? OK.

When a group organised robbers (led by Clive Owen's Dalton Russel) attempt to take over the New York trust bank, inexperienced detectives Frazier (Washington) and Mitchell (Britain's Chewiel Ejoifor) are sent to try and relieve the situation. Soon there's more to the robbery than it seems, as bank owner Christopher Plummer (the captain from The Sound of Music) discovers the robbers may be after one of his gems locked deep in that very bank. So he hires the suitably deceitful Madeline White (Foster) to sort things out.

Yet as the plot twists and turns, nothing really happens to make the heart leap a beat. The excitement level remains pretty constant and although we have flashbacks, flash-forwards and even some flash-bang grenades, it's seems so clever it can't really get off the ground. However there's much to take away from Inside Man. The performances on the whole are spot on – Clive Owen – a particularly changeable actor (great in Closer, rubbish in King Arthur) particularly underplays his part to perfection. Jodie Foster is also superb as the mighty Manhattan bitch who's back-room deals and subtle conniving tries to outwit the brains of the aforementioned Owen. Denzel Washington, while never going lengths to add anything to his part, is also fine as the NYPD man making sense of the situation.

The plot, featuring everything from Albanians, boob sizes to Nazis (yes, Nazis) is clever to a certain point, but starts to lose much of the groundwork it made towards the end. It rollicks its way through the first hour and a half before screenwriter Russell Gewirtz seems to have made a hash of a potentially great conclusion (e.g. what happened to Willem Dafoe?). And yet it seems Spike Lee maybe trying to make a point, be it political or ethical through Inside Man. He frequently points out stereotypical racism (arabs are terrorists, etc) or even that there's more to life than money (Washington's Frazier says from the start that the robbers don't want cash – "Who ever heard of a bank robbers escaping on a plane with fifty hostages? This ain't no bank robbery!"). If there was a subplot to be found it's dissolved by the cluster of events in the story. Owen points out at the start "pay strict attention to what I say because I choose my words carefully and never repeat myself" and that's exactly what you've got to do. The events go so quickly that you'll be forgiven for losing track early on. However, if you do keep track 'til the end Inside Man is a rewarding, if bewildering experience.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good but not Magical
21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The fourth big screen adventure of the hapless Boy Who Lived sees our hero inexplicably wound up in the Tri-wizard tournament, a sort of one-off magical sporting contest for thrill-seekers. Unfortunately, Harry is not one of these thrill seekers, preferring a quiet year to a breathtaking CGI fuelled adventure quest. Yet to what reason Harry has been placed in the tournament remains a mystery…

The Goblet of Fire is automatically noticed to be a darker movie, its opening sequence being a chilling dream about another threat to Harry's quirky life. In tone, GOF is a much darker movie than its predecessors, playing more to the book's murkier elements rather than its lighter aspects. And this is where GOF manages to do well. Four Weddings and a Funeral director Mike Newell does well to portray a sense of suspense. The film excels in is special effects. The producers have obviously spared no expense in giving the movie a visual dominance, with dragons, mermaids and yet more freckle reducing anti bodies for the leads (or so we think…)

Sadly, however, there is little else to applaud about The Goblet of Fire. The film does seem to be the weakest in the series so far. In fact, one could talk until the cows come home about the problems with this movie. The directing is lazy, the cutting shoddy, and the (remaining) script atrocious. However, one must sympathise with the filmmakers. The 636 page story is such a bulky book that returning screenwriter Steve Kloves struggles to find which plot is the most prominent. The plot is about as messy as a dragon at a tea party, as there is an incredible amount of contrasting material. First, you have a nice little conversation and suddenly it's a mind blowing (but altogether uninspiring) set-piece. The real reason why the plot is untidy is that unlike in Chris Columbus' (first two) films where there were long bits of dialogue and plot development, interspersed by small (in length) set pieces, GOF has long sections of set pieces with small pieces of dialogue. This results in a messy plot which you simply don't care about. It seems that rather than caring about the magical mystery drama or the normal life of Hogwarts, the producers seem to only think of the "crowdpleasing" visuals. This leaves the film with little charm or heart to be found, a factor that made the previous movies so comforting. GOF also falls victim to the hype brigade's overhaul of the Harry's first sexual awakenings. Katie Leung's Cho Chang is featured in only a handful of scenes, and, even though it is quite a charming affair, the Christmas Yule Ball seems a wholly climatic event. Yet the film is by no means a disaster. A host of new characters do help, with Brendan Gleeson's hyperactive 'Mad-Eye' Moody, and more notably Ralph Fiennes suitably eerie Dark Lord. The acting has certainly improved (despite very little dialogue anyway) and the leads seem to carry off their lines with little problem. Fiennes seems to save the end from a dark verdict, with a truly exhilarating finale in contrast to the rest of the movie.

The Goblet of Fire is good fun, and it is easy to be enthralled for most of the 160 minutes one lies there. But the filmmakers need to change tack before they consider how to approach the Order of the Phoenix.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A truly great feel good film
28 November 2004
The second sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark is an awesome, beautifully crafted film, and arguably the best of the Indiana Jones trilogy. The film is funnier, classier and far more laid back than the other two woody story lines, mostly because of the introduction of the excellent Sean Connery as Indy's eccentric father. Spielberg and Lucas get back on track after their off the rails first sequel in which to many peoples' horror had none of the Nazis or characters that made Raiders so unique, however, what Spielberg does to make this film a classic is the use of historical data with the swashbuckling storyline of adventure and action. Not to mention that this may well be the greatest feel good film ever made...
83 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed