Inside Man review

Spike Lee's latest - his seventeenth feature as a director - certainly has pedigree. Overseen by Hollywood super-producer Brian Grazer and with Oscar-winners Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster in its cast, this tale of a bank heist should have all the makings of a classy thriller. Why then is the end result only fair? The answer to this lies in Russell Gewirtz's script, which has too much fat that needs to be trimmed, and Lee's own reverential treatment of the subject. Instead of a snappy and taut affair it ends up as a mildly diverting offering, but one which could have been so much better.

In the tradition of classic films of the genre such as Dog Day Afternoon (pleasingly referred to in the script) and The Taking of Pelham 123, Inside Man gives us a bank job seen from several points of view. Clive Owen plays Dalton Russell, the leader of a group of robbers who stroll into a New York bank one afternoon, take everyone hostage, and proceed to trade off with negotiator Keith Frazier (Washington). It seems like a straightforward hold-up - the usual requests for a bus and a plane soon emerge - but once the Chairman of the bank (Christopher Plummer) intervenes, events become more complicated.

Plummer's character has a very serious reason for not wanting the bank robbed, so much so that he hires his own expert in these matters (Jodie Foster) to come and help, or hinder, Washington's approach. Tensions rise both in and out of the bank as the hostage-takers threaten to start killing their prisoners.

There are several classy twists and turns in the film - not least in its title - and this is not a Spike Lee film that deals with race. Instead however it deals with a subject that may just about be ending its time as a source for screenplays - you'll have to see it to find out what this is. There are some decent performances too, not least Clive Owen's no-nonsense gang leader.

Others fare less well however: the likes of Willem Dafoe and Chiwetel Ejiofor are largely wasted in supporting roles. Lee never overcomes the major problem with all static films like this which are largely set in the same place: after a while the setting becomes too familiar and a little dull for the audience. It's hard not to think of other films along the same line which have tried and failed: Travolta and Hoffman in Mad City, Colin Farrell in Phone Booth, and Washington himself in the interminable John Q.

So while the film can self-referentially namecheck classics of the genre, it fails in comparison to all of them, because instead of increasing the tension it loses its focus, especially in a long second hour. This is a shame, but audiences are unlikely to come out raving about it.

Paul Hurley