Freya Black Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 (edited) I found the movie to be very well made. It's the best movie I've seen this month. It's really good, a lot of fun, and quite radical! In some ways it might be spikes most radical film because it is so mainstream but is also very, very Spike. It's a real Hollyywood genre movie. Really well done. I don't think it's too silly like some folks do...but it is fiction afterall. The fact it is a bit Silly is one of the things I love about it. It's so tongue in cheek. I just found out that apparently the guy who delivers the pizza is even the exact same actor as delivered the pizza in dog day afternoon. :) Great touch. It is just the perfect stereotypical distillation of its genre. I enjoyed it. Me too, it is a lot of fun, but then I tend to see genre movies as throwaway entertainment normally, whereas this is not only a genre movie but something so much more too, it has humour and it has Spikes political edge. Great! :) No, the hole itself wasn't for hiding anything, or used as a distraction, nor an escape tunnel. It served a very different function. I thought that he hid in the hole, but now you mention it, maybe I am confused about this. What did they use the hole for then? Ouch, now I'm wondering if I misinderstood the whole end of the movie somehow. love Freya Edited March 29, 2006 by Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 (edited) It was essentially a throw back to 60's/70's bank robbing films. In the film they referenced "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Serpico". I wouldn't call this a trash genre especially in the sense that Sidney Lumet's films dealt with real corruption and social issues of the time. You misunderstand me, I meant not that this paticular genre was trashy, but more that genre movies generally are trashy by their nature, but yes, people have managed to do things within genre that have been good. Spike in this movie for one, although I'm a bit shaken by the fact it sounds like I wasn't able to understand the ending of the film! Yowch! :( love Freya Edited March 29, 2006 by Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Yeah it sounds like a couple of people here may not have totally understood what happened at the end. If I say what the hole was for it would give too much away to people who haven't seen the film yet. But I've probably already said too much. I've sent you an e-mail Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 (edited) Yeah it sounds like a couple of people here may not have totally understood what happened at the end. If I say what the hole was for it would give too much away to people who haven't seen the film yet. But I've probably already said too much. Wow, that's really changed my opinion of the film then. It's quite bad if a lot of people find the end of the film incomprehensible unless it was meant to be. I mean the ending is one of the most important parts of a film. I actually feel slightly bad and embaressed I said so many good things about the film now. So the hole in the ground was at best superflous to the plot and should have been left out I think. So he just hid beined a false wall then or something? Suddenly large parts of the film seem to not make a lot less sense. :( I guess these things aren't that important as the things that made it special weren't really related directly to the silly heist plot, but all the same, it does detract badly from it as a whole. Can you mail me off list and tell me what happened at the end then? love Freya Edited March 29, 2006 by Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) Okay, tenobell mailed me off list and explained the ending, and I feel I have to take back a bit of what I have said about this film. I guess my suspension of disbelief was working so well that I came to conclusions about the ending that were all wrong, and sadly in reality the ending seems to be quite badly riddled with holes, although I think some of this is probably down to cultural differences (I'm not an American resident). I guess the ending was a bit incomprehensible to me too which is also poor as I'm sure that was not the intention. On the up side, the cliched genre based plot was not what I really liked about the film in the first place in some ways, but that Spike had taken it and reshaped it in his own way, and this aspect is really good and entertaining. However it's poor if the ending doesn't make sense and is riddled with holes if it's meant to be a genre film of this type. It's very sad that the film falls apart at the end in this way because it was so close to being a very complete film. I still recommend the film as it is good and entertaining, but be prepared for a somewhat poor and unfeasable ending. Thanks for filling me in Tenobell. love Freya Edited March 30, 2006 by Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 All of the information about how they accomplished the bank robbery was shown. But it was not presented in any linear fashion. We saw what they were doing, we just couldn't understand what they were doing. The way it was done was meant to confuse the audience as well as the police. Much of the bank robbery was shown in short clips that you had to remember to put it all together in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 All of the information about how they accomplished the bank robbery was shown. But it was not presented in any linear fashion. We saw what they were doing, we just couldn't understand what they were doing. The way it was done was meant to confuse the audience as well as the police. Much of the bank robbery was shown in short clips that you had to remember to put it all together in the end. Well yeah, that isn't really a problem, the trouble is that when you do put those bits together, they don't really make sense and are riddled with holes. I guess you have to ignore all the holes but even then it's still a really crap ending because he is supposed to be such a mega-genius and all but that's the best idea he can come up with? Really poor. Having said all that maybe the film will make slightly more sense to U.S. audiences. I've seen this kind of thing in horror movies too and it always seems really weird then, and the few places I stayed in in the states didn't appear to be like this but maybe there are places like this in the states and it is fairlly normal. Still the film has quite a bit going for it other than a lame and nonsensical ending, so maybe we can ignore that because although it's a big letdown it's not really what the film is about and it's got lots of other things going for it. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The simplicity is the beauty of it. Everyone was looking for something really complicated, the way Clive Owen walks out of the bank was so simple that no one thinks of it. The guy he steals the diamonds from is not supposed to have them in the first place, the guy is not able to report them stolen. From an official standpoint there was no crime to investigate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I watched the movie this morning, and I enjoyed it. I liked the lighting, as someone else commented, its simplicity was nice. However I noticed several times during the movie that the framing felt a little top-heavy. It seemed that there wasn't enough headroom in some of the shots. (For example in some of the 2-shots with Jody Foster at the end of the movie) Did anyone else notice anything like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted April 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nicely shot movie with an unobtrusive lighting style. I have three complaints, though: Suffering from close-up-itis, as most films are today. Far to many. And as someone said, they were just unpleasantly tight having to cut just above the eyebrows and STILL not getting the chin in. The flashbacks in DI-style, high con looked terrible to me. It looks like hey-let's-shoot-this-on-DV-and-turn-the-contrast-up-like-mad-and-try-to-fool-people-into-thinking-its-film. That old chestnut. So sick of that look. So sick of people mixing up looks in film overall - just play it straight, we get it, it's a flashback. OK? The narrow angle stuff just seemed random and quite out of place. It felt kinda Tony Scott-light, if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 So sick of people mixing up looks in film overall - just play it straight, we get it, it's a flashback. OK? Actually it was a flash forward. The cross processed/bleach bypassed material happens after the bank robbery but we see it as the bank robbery unfolds. Whether one liked the look or not is subjective. But I agree with its need. A different look was needed as a cue for the audience that these events were not happening at the same time as the bank robbery. Showing those interrogation scenes during the bank robbery shows the confusion as to exactly who are Clive Owen's accomplices. By the time the bank robbery is over we already know what happened during the interrogations. Which would probably have gotten tedious and boring if we had to watch all of those interrogations at the same time. After the bank robbery is over the story is able to progress to the next events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 So, we've discussed the shutter angle stuff. Nice try, always worth using the technology to add to the message - but it's better if it's more subtle. This effect was too distracting. And we've discussed the mechanics of the plot - intriguing, and who cares if there were a few loopholes. It's entertainment, not a court case. What I liked was the way Spike Lee managed to make his comments about New York society using a "trashy bank heist movie" as a vehicle. The way Arthur Case (no relation, I hope!) and Jodi Foster's character can come and go through police lines as they please, but ordinary people (hostages) are abused and trampled. I liked the comment that the Sikh guy could "always get a cab ride". The gross reaction of the police to the first report of a bank heist -no shortage of manpower or hardware when there's a Wall Streeet Bank (and its owner) to protect. And plenty more, but it's too soon for spoilers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 And we've discussed the mechanics of the plot - intriguing, and who cares if there were a few loopholes. It's entertainment, not a court case. True enough, although it's quite a problem that the ending will be somewhat confusing and nonsensical to non-european audiances. I had to have the ending explained to me, and I'm still like "he did what?????" because that wouldn't be possible to do here in England and I'm still reeling from the idea that this would be considered normal in America, as when I've seen it in horror movies, I've always written it off in my mind as being a bit of a strange plot device and that it would be considered special or different. I think this is the main reason it got such terrible reviews here I think. The ending doesn't make sense. Then again, maybe they are out to get Spike. Theres also the problem that the passage of time is apparently so long at the end (a week!!!!) that the ending is just completely unfeasable. Having said that this was the least important part of the film for me in a way, but it did kind of destroy the genre aspect of it a bit, so that it's not quite as complete overall as it could be, which is a shame as Spike has done such a great job. What I liked was the way Spike Lee managed to make his comments about New York society using a "trashy bank heist movie" as a vehicle. The way Arthur Case (no relation, I hope!) and Jodi Foster's character can come and go through police lines as they please, but ordinary people (hostages) are abused and trampled. I liked the comment that the Sikh guy could "always get a cab ride". The gross reaction of the police to the first report of a bank heist -no shortage of manpower or hardware when there's a Wall Streeet Bank (and its owner) to protect. And plenty more, but it's too soon for spoilers. Exactly, and I'm not sure that's just New York society either but then I do live on a backward little island too. :) Anyway, I just loved the way he made it more than a genre movie. I mean you can enjoy it as a genre movie (exceptions noted above) but it's also very much a spike lee movie and that is what makes it so radical. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Theres also the problem that the passage of time is apparently so long at the end (a week!!!!) that the ending is just completely unfeasable. How was that totally unfeasible? What does every bank in England have that there is absolutely no way that can be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wuijts Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 (edited) Saw it yesterday and wasn't really impressed. The robbery itself was ingenious, but the rest of the story lacked some kind of coherence and tension, probably because there were too many story elements that needed to fit together. I don't like it when Denzel Washington plays these wiseguy characters, i don't really believe his performance. To me he's much better as a nice guy who ends up at the wrong place at the wrong time. Whenever Washington plays the good badass, i get the same feeling i got when i saw this movie Ticks, with Carlton 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' Banks as a streetwise gangsta. Also, i thought the characters overall were just a little flat. You don't get to know anything really about anyone, just some simple backgroung info, sometimes not even that. What was up with Jodie Foster?! That was certainly one of the worst written roles i have ever seen her do. The plot was pretensious and simplistic. Only recently has there been a lot of attention about the subject, and it certainly deserves all the attention it can get, but the way Spike Lee handled it to me was just overly simplistic. You have movies that don't answer your questions as a narrative strategy against the closure-seeking plots of mainstream Hollywood cinema, like the work of Michael Haneke, but you also have movies that don't answer your questions because they rather focus on cool action and entertainment. I believe Inside Man to be one of the latter. Ofcourse Spike Lee does a lot to focus on prejudice and hidden racism as well, and if you can this within the boundaries of mainstream film, that's fantastic. The videogame parody was even used in the intro sequence with the robbers van moving uptown, most explicitly in a high crane shot following the van, and the shot of the grille of the van. Dawn of the Dead 2004 also did this in their trailer. I like it. I thought the lighting overall was natural and nice. The whole feel of the framing and cutting was a bit restless, which you could justitfy with the story, but that still doesn't make it easy to watch. I agree with the people here who thought the narrow-shutter effect was at times a bit nauseating. The function of the hole in the ground was mentioned indirectly at the moment they stopped digging. To come to an end of my incoherent review: i liked it, but not too much. Edited May 8, 2006 by Alex Wuijts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Webley Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I thought the photography was brilliant. Only shot that didn't work for me was Denzel rolling toward us like he was on roller skates. What were they thinking? This is a Spike Lee trademark -- refer to many of his films including another shot like this with Denzel Washington in Malcom X Oops...didn't mean to beat a dead horse. I guess I should have read on -- this has been mentioned. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 So it's a bit late now, but I've just seen the film on DVD. It's the first Spike Lee film I've seen and I'll have to make it a point to pick up a few more of his films. I really liked the cinematography, specifically the blues and one shot of bright orange caution tape straight across the center of the frame. Both of those are somewhat sketchy stylistic decisions, but Libatique pulled it off really well. I agree that the narrow shutter stuff was a bit obtrusive. It feels a tad played-out, really. i dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now