Universal Pictures | Release Date: March 24, 2006
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 271 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
214
Mixed:
37
Negative:
20
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
DanielJ.Apr 13, 2006
This is hack work. I was a fan of Lee's even when the buzz around him died. And I love all the major actors in this movie. But I thought it was one of the clumsiest movies I've seen in a long time. No energy, momentum, style. The This is hack work. I was a fan of Lee's even when the buzz around him died. And I love all the major actors in this movie. But I thought it was one of the clumsiest movies I've seen in a long time. No energy, momentum, style. The script was anemic and corny. I'm not sure how this film was supposed to translate. As suspense it failed because it telegraphs everything in advance. It has a distracting sublot with a nazi sympathizer that is based on an ubelievable premise. It also has too many A-list actors like Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer doing small parts that are little to work with and that is something I always find distracting. I'm not trying to be a hater, but I really disliked this movie and am taking the time to write this because I disliked it so much. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
WillieG.Aug 9, 2006
This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen. On several occasions, this mess was nothing more than thinly veiled racial jabs masquerading as a crime thriller that goes nowhere. We see Spike's usual M.O. on display This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen. On several occasions, this mess was nothing more than thinly veiled racial jabs masquerading as a crime thriller that goes nowhere. We see Spike's usual M.O. on display throughout the film, which basically amounts to making caucasians feel guilty about...well being caucasians. Spike Lee was in way over his head on this one. Case in point...Lee is the only dolt transparent enough to cast Jodie Foster as a manipulative power broker (who's white of course since white=manipulative in Spike Lee joints) then proceed to name the character Ms. White. Even the overt racial sarcasm falls flat as his breathless pursuit of half cocked social commentary drags this sophomoric production down to the abyss of most forgettable films of all time. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
DWillyMar 30, 2006
Pretty terrible, really. The masterful Denzel, even more so than with "Man On Fire," is swimming upstream here and Clive Owen better think of a way to add some vulnerability to his hardass act soon because it's wearing thin. There is Pretty terrible, really. The masterful Denzel, even more so than with "Man On Fire," is swimming upstream here and Clive Owen better think of a way to add some vulnerability to his hardass act soon because it's wearing thin. There is some really painful dialog as our heros dissassociate from the grave danger threatoning fifty human lives, and, while Spike himself doesn't appear, there is scene after scene featuring talentless people demonstrating his acting technique of very nearly winking directly into the camera. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
BlisterfishCafeAug 7, 2006
Here we have the second worst film I have ever seen. This DVD should come with a packet of "eye bleach". Boorish from it's inception, this film quietly reminds you why Hollywood is dead. I gave it a "one" because Ms. Foster's knees Here we have the second worst film I have ever seen. This DVD should come with a packet of "eye bleach". Boorish from it's inception, this film quietly reminds you why Hollywood is dead. I gave it a "one" because Ms. Foster's knees look like tadpoles in the gullet of a large pelican. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
BayLeafSep 9, 2006
A silly and limp "thriller" by an otherwise intelligent director. There were laughs in all the wrong places.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
FrankD.Apr 18, 2006
Due to the generally positive response to this film, I asumed I would like it. Wrong!!! Sorely lacking in style, this potboiler is all over the place! The writing of Denzel Washington's character is often ridiculous; and he works Due to the generally positive response to this film, I asumed I would like it. Wrong!!! Sorely lacking in style, this potboiler is all over the place! The writing of Denzel Washington's character is often ridiculous; and he works valiently to overcome it. The only real entertainment value for me were the unintential (I assume) moments of camp; notably, the telephone scene between Denzel and his girlfriend; and the bizarre performance from Jodie Foster, who seems to be trying to channel Ann Coulter! Foster's attempts at being cool and cunning come off as simply laughable. I'm not sure how Christopher Plummer kept a straight face in his scenes with her. For me, only Foster's performance fiasco made this film worth my viewing time. And why was Willem Dafoe's participation needed here? I used to believe Spike was good film director, but a poor screenwriter. After seeing "Inside Man." I now have my doubts about his skills as a director. I think most of the "names" signed on for the money. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
EricY.Jul 31, 2006
you think the movie is clever, but its not, there's way better movie out there than is one, and please, don't take your girlfriend to a movie like this one.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
JohnB.Aug 10, 2006
The worst thing about Inside Man is not that it is such a terrible film, (which it is) but that it received such good reviews. What's the deal? Are the critics just so used to lousy movies that they give a bomb like this good marks? The worst thing about Inside Man is not that it is such a terrible film, (which it is) but that it received such good reviews. What's the deal? Are the critics just so used to lousy movies that they give a bomb like this good marks? This is a really bad script, poorly acted (what is up with Jodie Foster?-i've seen better acting at my kid's school play), and poorly directed by Spike Lee-who hasen't made a good film since-maybe never. Boring, stupid and a waste of time! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
OrsonDec 21, 2006
Of all the films of 2006, the largely favorable critical reception of this one is truly the most baffling. It actually manged to make at least one film critic's 10 Best List!!!! Slick? Yes. Good? Absolutely not! The only reason I give Of all the films of 2006, the largely favorable critical reception of this one is truly the most baffling. It actually manged to make at least one film critic's 10 Best List!!!! Slick? Yes. Good? Absolutely not! The only reason I give this film "1" point is for the highly-entertaining, unintentionally laughable performance by Jodie Foster -- she's so awful in her seething intensity, that she's wonderful! Foster's megacorporate red-herring heavy-breathing was the only aspect of the film that kept me interested -- just to see what she would do next... The whole enterprise is slick garbage! I'm sure they all enjoyed cashing their checks when the project was finished. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
JeremyK.Mar 26, 2006
The best part of this movie is the trailer you see on tv.. looks great.. till you get there and the two hours of your life is over. Boring not enough action.. Jody Foster has lost her acting abilities. I wanted to not the fack smile off her The best part of this movie is the trailer you see on tv.. looks great.. till you get there and the two hours of your life is over. Boring not enough action.. Jody Foster has lost her acting abilities. I wanted to not the fack smile off her face.. But i dont hit woman. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
SteveO.Mar 26, 2006
I agree that the best part of this movie is the trailer on TV. Unnecessary social commentary inserted into useless waste of time scenes (at one point, denzel instructs a low level patrolman not to use ethnic slurs and the bank robber owen I agree that the best part of this movie is the trailer on TV. Unnecessary social commentary inserted into useless waste of time scenes (at one point, denzel instructs a low level patrolman not to use ethnic slurs and the bank robber owen tries to steer a child away from playing a violent video game, lame for a supposed heist movie) jodie foster's character was useless and the acting belonged in "mean girls". If you're looking for a plot with standard rising action/climax/falling action don't expect any from this film. Yes I understand the ending but that doesn't mean that it was clever or interesting. Over half of the theater waited throughout the entire ending credits with a desperate hope that they would eventually get there money's worth and a portion of the plot would be seen to completion. no such luck. Loose ends are everywhere from the role of clive owen's fellow bank robbers to how the robbers got all of their information to how they were at all connected to Case. Although Denzel's observation that "this ain't no bank robbery" is correct, I was disappointed with the "deep" and "complex" conspiracy that for some reason involved the mayor of new york, although his character seemed unaware of even his own role halfway through the movie Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JoshC.Sep 17, 2007
Lee, for one, is long beyond his days as a civic provocateur and voice for the radical social world. Like John Singleton, he may have found his legs as a pulp manufacturer whose least arguable claim to fame is that he can do fast, funny, Lee, for one, is long beyond his days as a civic provocateur and voice for the radical social world. Like John Singleton, he may have found his legs as a pulp manufacturer whose least arguable claim to fame is that he can do fast, funny, attitudinal genre films better than Tony Scott. Washington and Foster, for their parts, are merely dukes in a sick kingdom, taking what roles they're offered for people their age (and sex) just to keep their careers afloat in the public brain-pan. Lee is playing the genre like a board game, and his film is a sniggering riff, filled with hyperbolic New York stereotypes, sexist jokes, puns, scattershot commentary on racial profiling and smug banter. As bogus in its way as Richard Donner's 16 Blocks, Inside Man has an even more irritating disrespect for the verities of police work and for the emotional life of urban Americans. There are a few rousing achievements on the table, in particular a comical police debate--instigated by a faux riddle tossed by Owen, about trains, U.S. currency and Grand Central Station--as well as a fast joke involving a Sikh hostage who, outraged by profiling, acknowledges that yes, he can easily hail a cab in Mid-Eastern-cabbie-saturated New York. But heist films are hardly what they used to be; for decades, they were a vehicle for postwar desperation and fatalism, and today the genre has an empty tank of frisson to offer without film noir's acknowledgment of doom. The difference between, say, Stanley Kubrick's 1956 masterpiece The Killing and contemporary daydreams like Inside Man is the difference between a luckless hell on earth and a dull weekend in the Poconos. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
SirShelbyMar 26, 2006
This movie is an insult to intelligent movie making in every imaginable sense. The story is flat out lame, with the super "surprise" ending being nothing more than a tired joke. Now it seems that everyone from critics to casual movie goers This movie is an insult to intelligent movie making in every imaginable sense. The story is flat out lame, with the super "surprise" ending being nothing more than a tired joke. Now it seems that everyone from critics to casual movie goers have been willing to excuse this movie solely based on the great cast. Which would have been understandable, had the acting itself not been the greatest weakness of this pretentious mess. Washington gives one of the worst performances of his career here, playing a sarcastic know-it-all cop who is annoyingly juvenile and devoid of any compelling thoughts or emotions.i.e., he and his partner stare at a female victim's large chest while interogating her, making light of her emotions. (this is supposed to be funny) Foster is also terrible playing a mysterious liason with her own agenda. Dafoe is miscast as a clueless police captain. Owen is the only exception here, suffering through an under-developed role. The movie is ruined by random attempts at comedy, both intentional and unintentional, which ruins any suspense or tension that might have helped it. THE BOTTOM LINE: A pretentious hollywood film that trys to pass itself off as an updated Dog Day Afternoon, but instead feels more like a failed comedy with an A-list cast. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful