There are many reasons why I admire Spike Lee so relentlessly, but the most important one is that he is one of the few filmmakers who gives me exactly what I desire in a film – memorable stories, interesting characters, notable filmmaking style, and a great song over the opening credits (the most important aspect of any film, naturally). I have been looking at some of his more mainstream fare lately (such as the extraordinary 25th Hour which I reviewed a while ago), and the most recent film that found its way into my path was Inside Man, Lee’s most commercial film, a traditional cops-and-(bank)robbers thriller. It is a film that, while I admittedly didn’t adore, shows an entirely different side to Lee, and perhaps serves to be the natural companion to the similarly-themed 25th Hour (both being films about crime), insofar as while 25th Hour was a character-driven piece about the psychology of crime, more concerned with showing the mental side of the criminal mind, Inside Man was an unhinged, adrenaline-fueled thriller that assembled a large cast to tell an exciting story, albeit one that does not necessarily neglect the more psychological aspects of the story, but does not foreground them either. I found Inside Man to be a fascinating experiment, and while it is flawed at times, often being inconsistent and muddled in terms of genre boundaries, it is still noteworthy for its unique depiction of a familiar situation.

A bank in Manhattan is targeted for an elaborate robbery, orchestrated by the enigmatic Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), who takes over the bank through violent but intricate means, holding dozens of hostages with his troupe of fellow criminals. Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) and his protege, Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are sent to serve as hostage negotiators. They work alongside grizzled police captain, John Darius (Willem Dafoe), who does not respond particularly warmly to the presence of the negotiators, who (by Frazier’s own admission) handle a more cerebral side to these operations that others in law enforcement are not able to. It soon becomes clear that this is not a normal bank robbery, serving to go beyond simply being a cash heist, but something far deeper. Frazier, who has his own share of troubles and controversies, soon realizes that the mysterious leader of this group of thieves is far smarter than he seems, and the two men engage in a distant battle of the wits, attempting to usurp the other and come out victorious. Meanwhile, the founder of the bank, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), upon hearing of the crisis at his bank, enlists the well-regarded power broker, Madeleine White (Jodie Foster) to assist him in the procurement of some highly-sensitive contents of his safety-deposit box, which (if made public) would force him to be faced with some difficult questions. These events, which transpire over several hours, are tense for everyone involved, and it soon becomes clear that this is not a normal bank robbery, and something much more sinister.

Denzel Washington is a great actor, but if there is one aspect of his career that I am not particularly fond of is the lack of more comedic roles in his filmography. With the exception of very few, such as The Mighty Quinn and Heart Condition, Washington normally plays extremely serious, morally-strong characters, except for instances when he plays more villainous characters, but even his antagonists are somewhat dignified and straightforward in their motivations. Inside Man is an oddity of a film, particularly because of the oscillation in Washington’s performance, what some may call inconsistency. Keith Frazier is a complex character, and what I thought would be another reliable but expected performance from Washington – a dedicated and willful police officer – turned into something a bit more diverse throughout the film. His character possesses an unsettling sense of humor, one that does not necessarily work seamlessly in the context of the film but allows for some much-needed levity in this film. Washington’s performance creates a character who is fascinating but unimpeachably complex. Inside Man is a film that does pay attention to the psychology of crime, but it never looks too deeply into the mind of the main character himself, which could either be a flaw or a merit. Washington is as good as ever, but his character is inconsistent, and considering he is the central character in the film, it is slightly disappointing that he isn’t developed more. Clive Owen plays Dalton Russell, and much like Washington, as good as he is, it is not one of his finest performances. Spending the majority of this film hidden behind a mask, it is a performance that is difficult to judge, because the nuances are not fully present. Both of the two leads are good and do well with what they are given, but considering their consistently brilliant performances both before and after this film, one would not be blamed for hoping that there was slightly more to them in Inside Man.

Inside Man is a film that has a pair of great leads but truly thrives on the strengths of the supporting cast. Jodie Foster is as terrific as she always is, and is at her most acidic and sardonic as Madeleine White, the power-hungry fixer who relishes in making affluential connections, and has very little time for those who she feels are beneath her. Inside Man also features an earlier performance from the marvelous Chiwetel Ejiofor, who isn’t given much to do, but is a welcome presence, bringing warmth and pathos to a character who is little more than a supplement to the main character of Keith Frazier. Christopher Plummer, who relentlessly emanates sophistication, is as brilliant as always in the small but impactful role as Arthur Case, the financial mogul who finds his tranquil existence shattered when his haunting past threatens to surface. Willem Dafoe, another extremely reliable actor, is given the pivotal role of Jack Darius, who has some complexities the film doesn’t seem interested in exploring. The cast as a whole works together really well, and even if the leads are somewhat diminished and not particularly effective, the film as a whole thrives on the mutual amalgamation of efforts from the cast.

The filmmakers knew what they were doing when they made Inside Man, a film about the psychology of a bank robbery. In 1975, Sidney Lumet made the definitive bank heist masterpiece, Dog Day Afternoon, a film that inspired many subsequent works to emulate its winning formula. None of them could reach quite the same heights, including Inside Man. The difference is, the influence of Dog Day Afternoon is not ignored and is rather readily embraced. In a way, much like Inside Man is the more action-heavy companion to 25th Hour, it is also a great supplement to Dog Day Afternoon, taking the perspective of the other side of such a situation, the detective and hostage negotiators who work tirelessly to bring order back to a chaotic scene, as well as to ensure safety of the innocent people who are involved. By casting minor players from Dog Day Afternoon, as outright having Washington’s character state that the motivations of these criminals were based upon that film, Lee directly references the previous film, and while it may be initially jarring, it ultimately creates a metafictional aura which suits this film well, deflating the unbearable tension just slightly, and reminding us of the thrilling aspects of a film like this, all the while not neglecting the seriousness of the situations it conveys.

There is something else I noticed in Inside Man that struck me as quite fascinating – none of these characters are actually likable, but they certainly are realistic and not merely crime thriller archetypes. Washington plays a character who is dedicated and willful, but also morally dubious and slightly sleazy in how he engages with others. He is a protagonist who is not necessarily likable or heroic, and the same can be said for nearly every other character. Lee and screenwriter Russell Gewirtz do not construct a traditional thriller consisting of heroes and villains – all these characters fall into the ambiguous grey territory of being realistically flawed. Frazier is far from a perfect law enforcer, and he is as privy to temptation as anyone. Russell is not merely the sociopathic evil genius who executes a perfect crime, but rather a man with murky intentions based on somewhat understandably moral motivations. The characters in Inside Man, for the most part, are unabashedly real, and while the feeling of detachment from these characters can initially be jarring, the honesty of how they are portrayed, as complex and layered individuals, is one of this film’s most significant merits. Lee has always been adept at constructing characters that are nuanced and fascinating, and even in a film like Inside Man, which is more of a populist crime thriller than the social drama or scathing satire that he is normally known for, he manages to find the subtle realism in his characters.

Inside Man is not a perfect film, and there are many shortcomings in this film that may have benefitted from additional work in order to create something more impactful. The inconsistency in this film is one of its biggest weaknesses, and there was clearly a conflict of interests between the director and the screenwriter – the former was trying to make a fun, thrilling crime film, while the latter was aiming for a more complex and psychological approach to familiar territory. Unfortunately, both efforts come up short, as, despite Inside Man being a very good film, it is often muddled and stuck between genres and intentions. There are far too many questions that are left open by this film (perhaps as a way of leading onto the now-canceled sequel), and it is a film far too over-run with ambiguities to make too much of an impression. There are distinctive gaps in this story, and while it has an interesting narrative structure (consisting of short interludes into the near-future, where Frazier and Mitchell interview hostages in an attempt to find the culprits), it isn’t utilized effectively enough. Inside Man could have been far more than just a thrilling crime film, and there was potential for a seriously entertaining mystery, and the film certainly does provide enough material for this – the nature of the heist, the motivations behind the characters, the pasts of the two leads and the contents of the safety-deposit box. These ideas are either entirely ignored, or glossed over in inconsequential, anticlimactic plot development, and the narrative structure could have been used more effectively to create the perception of mystery. Inside Man was not a dismal failure, and it still is a great film, but it could’ve been amongst Lee’s best if it had simply realized its true potential.

Inside Man is a very good film. It is a fast-paced, fascinating crime thriller that has enough action to keep audiences on the edge of their seat, as well as an abundance of more intricate character work that allows for meditative ponderings. It is not a perfect film, and there are many shortcomings that could have easily been amended through some further work. However, it is a film that is aware of its flaws, and in many instances embraces these problems and turns them into glowing merits. The cast is astounding, the story is interesting and the film as a whole is an exciting, unhinged and fun experience, and proves that Spike Lee is a masterful filmmaker, able to adapt his style to any story or genre, and produce memorable results. While Inside Man is neither as brilliant nor as biting as some of his previous work, it is a distinctive, noteworthy work, and one that manages to say some very profound things, even if the film as a whole doesn’t reach the heights it ultimately could have. Inside Man is not a perfect film, but it has a definite heart and soul, and while not every film can be a huge success, at least it is entertaining.