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.

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

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.

There really isn't any incentive for watching these movies, because of the poor directing that is set as a standard for modern movies, and because of the lack of inspiration caused by establishment writers stealing ideas from the better writers, as this movie so obviously shows us.It isn't a bad movie, but it has the flaws of modern movie making.It's a "bank heist with hostage" movie, but it's clear from the start that something else is happening. When the robbers separate the many hostages, and make everyone change garb over and over, including the garb of the robbers, we know they are intending to blend in with the crowd at the end in some way.In effect, it's much like the 1960 war movie, THEN THERE WERE THREE, in which a German is disguised as an American during a big battle involving many units that get split apart. The war movie is a hidden classic because of low budget and few big names, but it is written and directed skillfully.The first problem is the inane modern day use of "mixing time frames" which not only doesn't fit here, but is stupid, because it is contrived. It's a device meant to confuse whereas it doesn't work in real life. It only serves to hide the flaws of the plot. If you see the movie, you'll understand.Second problem is that every one of the hostages and robbers looks exactly alike. I believe there are about 4 that don't fit the pattern. All the men look alike, and most of the women look alike. And yet we're supposed to understand who is saying what at any time? Added to the "time frame mix".Third, no detective is as astute as Denzel's character. Of course, this is spoken of in the movie. Detectives are unimaginative and have no sense of reality compared to the cop on the beat. They're upwardly mobile machines who are incorrect about everyone most of the time, because they adhere to these dark ages of Psychiatry and Sociology meant to give the squeaky wheel the grease and avoid being hurt themselves.Fourth, the flood of information. That means all the useless crap we get that is purely in the movie to showcase or advertise someone's dialect, product, etc.. Because of the nature of this movie, that works as long as it doesn't interfere with the reality of the viewer piecing together the puzzle. It sets the viewer back from what the actual detective is piecing together.This fourth flaw is important, because it a simulation of modern culture, including Academia. Colleges and businesses pretend to give tests to grade students, but for the past 30 years, at the very least, have instead cheated. For example, a professor will ask a question in an oral test to a student, and then after the student answers, the professor will change the question, and will be backed up by the students who are part of the establishment. This happens in all U.S. universities I have attended. Businesses do this, too. It's the modern norm to keep control in the hands of the mob.Herein lies also the strength of the movie. The fact that no one really knows anything, and everyone is lying. However, the script is not very good at showing that.The fifth flaw is characters that no one can relate to. Again, this is because of modern culture, and because the control freaks are in control. They actually think we enjoy them bragging about their hatefulness, but only the geeks enjoy that. There is absolutely no explanation or credibility in some of the characters, particularly the blond woman who acts as a go between for police, bank president, and robber. She would never have been let into the situation by any of them. But then, this also serves as a strength of the movie, because Tarantino is telling us that the control freaks in charge are too moronic and self righteous to realize this woman is nothing. She has no assets. She's normal looking, not pretty by any means. She says nothing, offers nothing, and yet the ones in authority kowtow to her. That actually works. However, when Denzel's character gives in to her, we lose respect for him, too.The characters are mostly poorly written and done. The usual Hollywood preaching of "bank robbers are cool" fools the naïve, but not the rest of us, and it irks sane people.There are other modern movie flaws, but the production team was wise enough not to show that this "modern movie making" was indeed a flaw. It's a self depreciating bit that does make a point.Hits and misses. The worst part is the "mixed time frame" element. Get rid of that, and the movie will be a lot better.