Lee Finds Another Way to Prove His Brilliance

Rating: 8/10 (23 July 2010)

Inside Man features an incredible cast, a great - but not perfect - crime thriller script, amazing cinematography and a World Class director named Spike Lee. On paper it's a great film. If you see clips of some of the should-be classic scenes, you'd think this was one for the ages. It's not. There are just too many problems. Problems, sadly, that could've easily been avoided.
That said, Inside Man is a pretty good film. Not the classic it should've been, but a solid film that appeals to both the cinephile set and the everyday popcorn movie goer. Lee, who didn't write the script and only casually adds his signature fingerprints, here comes off as a real movie maker, Inside Man maybe being the movie we'll look back on as proof of his ability. Where fellow auteur types of his generation such as Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino seem unable to make anything other than signature films, Lee has done much for his legacy by proving that he can skillfully - and successfully - make someone else's movie.
And damn if Inside Man - which stars heavyweights Denzel Washington and Clive Owen (as well as a great supporting cast and the unnecessary presence of Jodie Foster) - isn't the by-far most commercially successful film of Lee's career, bringing in almost $200 million at theaters worldwide. To put that into perspective, Lee's films average $20 million. The concept of an auteur stepping away from his usual style to make a Hollywood picture, and then that film making 10 times more than the average of his other films, would be a great topic for a paper. Hell, it'd be a great idea for a topics course at a film school. I'd say that it's a shame, but, for what it is (an instantly entertaining bid dollar film whose only real creative touch is a small storytelling device), it's about as good as they come.
Now, how about those above mentioned problems. The usage of music, for starters, is embarrassingly unfitting and bad. Just plain bad taste. Also, Denzel's lead is a bit too clichéd of a character. They made lots of good movies anchored by characters so obvious in 40s, 50s and 60s, but not much since. Needless to say, Denzel's Detective Keith Frazier is a snore despite the actor's every effort to bring him to life. Another major problem is the Jodie Foster character, who is just downright out of place and almost unnecessary. We know why she's there, and it makes sense, but I get the feeling that some of the scenes that would've held her storyline together were cut or written out. Her presence will likely leave you scratching your head. And last but not least we have that story telling device we mentioned above, which is best described as a "In Medias Res" style, with Owen's character teasing us from the first frame and interrogation scenes edited here and there. It's not a bad device  it just doesn't work nearly as well as the writer, director, producers and cast probably thought it would when they were in production. Sometimes that happens in movies. Often, especially when you attempt something as ambitious as In Medias Res.
Inside Man does succeed, however, thanks to how well its made (especially the non linear editing, which is almost next-to-none), how nicely Lee injects style points here and there, and how downright memorable and well executed a handful of scenes are. But what, you ask, is the movie really about? Well, it's a heist movie. It's about some people robbing a bank and a very paranoid man who really doesn't want something he has stored in a safe deposit box to be uncovered. It's about a detective's last case before retiring and it's about a brilliant criminal. I don't want to say too much more, due to how the story is told and how easy it can be to kill the fun of a heist film by trying to describe the action. To me, Inside Man is about its director. It's about Spike Lee, who uses the film to remind us that he's one of the very best of his time.