2006 ROUNDUP: INSIDE MAN (Lee)
Anthony Lane wrote something about BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, the Woody Allen film from around a decade ago or so. He wrote about how Hollywood does not need great pictures, but rather good ones. The staples - the romantic comedies, the thrillers, the period dramas - these needed to be less formulaic, more interesting and unique, and the masterpieces could take a backseat for a little while. Another NYC auteur, this time Spike Lee, takes this notion and applies it towards the crime picture genre, with solid, if not spectacular, results.
It's easy to foget how good of an actor Denzel Washington is, mainly because I've seen so few Denzel Washington movies. TRAINING DAY was, I think, the last one that I watched, and I can't imagine what the one before that was. He is completely cool and collected in this as a hostage negotiator who slowly starts to realize that the bank robbery he's working isn't really a bank robbery at all. Clive Owen is Dalton Russel, the inside man, who knows a lot about the wartime dealings of the head of the board of director's at the bank. Jodie is just sort of there. The show belongs to Denzel, of course, but you probably already knew that. My favorite part was Clive Owen. He spends most of the film with his face covered, but there is a scene where he finds what he's looking for, the thing that'll make him rich and expose a wealthy man for the savage he is, and he pulls his mask off, staring longingly at the thing he's spent so long planning. Owen's face is so interesting, scruffy, deep lines running down his cheeks. Lee shoots it in close up, and it's beautiful.
Things start out with a relatively standing heist picture, people talking about "the perfect crime" and whatnot, but things soon start to unravel and it becomes about something else entirely. Lee can't resist throwing in some references to race relations in New York, and the first filmmaker to overtly reference 9/11 in a film also shows us Foster and Washington acting in front of a large "We Will Never Forget" banner. These touches never really come around to mean anything greater, though, just an everyday occurence in the melting pot.
I had to get on IMDb to check out Clive Owen's character's name, and of course ended up spending ten minutes or so reading the threads that are posted there. A mistake, as most trips to the IMDb usually end up being. While people debate whether or not Spike Lee is the worst director of all time and how this movie "sucks", they all seem to sort of miss the point. INSIDE MAN is a good movie; it never achieves greatness, but it never really tries to, either. It's obvious that Lee has fun with the material, and the cast is also laughably good. It's a solid little heist flick that has some interesting twists and turns. Note: this is coming from a person who typically hates any kind of movie that "twists and turns".
In a larger context, this is exactly what Hollywood needs. Take a look at the top seven films in America, in terms of moneymaking, and then look at their rottentomatoes scores:
01. NORBIT - 09%
02. HANNIBAL RISING - 17%
03. BECAUSE I SAID SO - 07&
04. THE MESSENGERS - 13%
05. NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM - 45%
06. EPIC MOVIE - 02%
07. SMOKIN' ACES - 27%
All studio pictures, all released nationwide in multiplexes from New York, across the flyover states, all the way to LA. If even half of these were as good as INSIDE MAN, then perhaps I'd watch more Hollywood pictures in theatres. Maybe a lot more people would, come to think of it. INSIDE MAN never attempts to tackle any big issues in any meaningful way. It knows its place, and it makes its claim as the little sudio picture that could. That Spike Lee is also releasing documentaries about Hurricane Katrina is important and admirable; he is able to make these documentaries because movies like INSIDE MAN are seen by the larger public. I think it's great that someone like Michael Heneke is allowed to try his hand at a Hollywood picture. The US remake of FUNNY GAMES will be almost certainly be inferior to the original, but the fact that it'll make Heneke some more money, and perhaps allow him to make movies for a little while longer, is worthy of note.
Perhaps what we need are great filmmakers making good pictures, at least for a little while. Just a thought. INSIDE MAN won't make my top 10, but it never set out to do so, either. This is, in its own way, worthy of note.
It's easy to foget how good of an actor Denzel Washington is, mainly because I've seen so few Denzel Washington movies. TRAINING DAY was, I think, the last one that I watched, and I can't imagine what the one before that was. He is completely cool and collected in this as a hostage negotiator who slowly starts to realize that the bank robbery he's working isn't really a bank robbery at all. Clive Owen is Dalton Russel, the inside man, who knows a lot about the wartime dealings of the head of the board of director's at the bank. Jodie is just sort of there. The show belongs to Denzel, of course, but you probably already knew that. My favorite part was Clive Owen. He spends most of the film with his face covered, but there is a scene where he finds what he's looking for, the thing that'll make him rich and expose a wealthy man for the savage he is, and he pulls his mask off, staring longingly at the thing he's spent so long planning. Owen's face is so interesting, scruffy, deep lines running down his cheeks. Lee shoots it in close up, and it's beautiful.
Things start out with a relatively standing heist picture, people talking about "the perfect crime" and whatnot, but things soon start to unravel and it becomes about something else entirely. Lee can't resist throwing in some references to race relations in New York, and the first filmmaker to overtly reference 9/11 in a film also shows us Foster and Washington acting in front of a large "We Will Never Forget" banner. These touches never really come around to mean anything greater, though, just an everyday occurence in the melting pot.
I had to get on IMDb to check out Clive Owen's character's name, and of course ended up spending ten minutes or so reading the threads that are posted there. A mistake, as most trips to the IMDb usually end up being. While people debate whether or not Spike Lee is the worst director of all time and how this movie "sucks", they all seem to sort of miss the point. INSIDE MAN is a good movie; it never achieves greatness, but it never really tries to, either. It's obvious that Lee has fun with the material, and the cast is also laughably good. It's a solid little heist flick that has some interesting twists and turns. Note: this is coming from a person who typically hates any kind of movie that "twists and turns".
In a larger context, this is exactly what Hollywood needs. Take a look at the top seven films in America, in terms of moneymaking, and then look at their rottentomatoes scores:
01. NORBIT - 09%
02. HANNIBAL RISING - 17%
03. BECAUSE I SAID SO - 07&
04. THE MESSENGERS - 13%
05. NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM - 45%
06. EPIC MOVIE - 02%
07. SMOKIN' ACES - 27%
All studio pictures, all released nationwide in multiplexes from New York, across the flyover states, all the way to LA. If even half of these were as good as INSIDE MAN, then perhaps I'd watch more Hollywood pictures in theatres. Maybe a lot more people would, come to think of it. INSIDE MAN never attempts to tackle any big issues in any meaningful way. It knows its place, and it makes its claim as the little sudio picture that could. That Spike Lee is also releasing documentaries about Hurricane Katrina is important and admirable; he is able to make these documentaries because movies like INSIDE MAN are seen by the larger public. I think it's great that someone like Michael Heneke is allowed to try his hand at a Hollywood picture. The US remake of FUNNY GAMES will be almost certainly be inferior to the original, but the fact that it'll make Heneke some more money, and perhaps allow him to make movies for a little while longer, is worthy of note.
Perhaps what we need are great filmmakers making good pictures, at least for a little while. Just a thought. INSIDE MAN won't make my top 10, but it never set out to do so, either. This is, in its own way, worthy of note.
Labels: 2006
posted by travis at 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home