Talk:Inside Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Review/Comment[edit]

As I read the comments below, perhaps https://numeroscop.net/angel-numbers/392-angel-number.html will clarify how the robbers guessed where the documents were hidden.


Saw this film at a preview last night in London and was severly underwhelmed. Both Brits do terrible American accents, Jodie Foster (and her role) are wasted in this and I'm sire I've seen this type of escape done before: it's not dissimilar to the ending of Escape To Victory. The ending is schmaltzy, no-one really gets to act and there are plot holes a mile wide. Look away now if you want to know no more BUT...how did anyone, least of all the bank robbers, get to know about the workings of the bank, Arthur Case's document and it's precise location (down to a deposit box which doesn't appear on the manifest) and the secret behind the ring? This film either deserves a prequel or avoiding. Warning, Spoiler ahead: About The One Ring (sry): It belonged to a Jewish friend of said "elderly CEO". He explains to Frazier that he could've saved him from the Konzentrationslager but the Nazies paid too much. Judging from the reaction of the other elderly guy in the black car at the end, I guess he is of that Jewish family and would know about the ring. As to how they know the ring was in that specific deposit box... I don't think it really matter as to how and where they got their information...

Is the inclusion of the iPod really relevant? I think that should be deleted.

A possible explanation regarding the ring: they did not knew exactly what was in the box except for the document and the diamonds; the ring was discovered after the box was opened by Russell, and the discovery was relayed to the Jewish guy who was part of the team.--IceCube 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Both Brits do terrible American accents" - presumably you mean Clive Owen and who is the other Brit ? Clive Owen's character never claims to be American, that's your assumption. How do you know he is not a war crimes investigator/vigilante/relative come to get revenge on behalf of a distant relation ? You say that the movie has plot holes and should be avoided because it doesn't explain every detail - some of us have imagination and can come up with plausible reasons for insignificant details. For goodness sake, how does Darth Vader brush his teeth ? - someone must make a prequel to explain that. 86.25.245.97 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iPod reference[edit]

I second deleting the iPod reference. Doesn't have to do with the plot really.

I added to the plot a bit but there's a lot left out. Feel free to add more. DrIdiot 05:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the iPod reference to Trivia. That's where it belongs.DrIdiot 17:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for real? Should we mention that people where listening to an ipod as well??

iPod was not shown for mere product placement, "people" were not listening music, the point was to validate the fact that they were replaying the Armenian President's speech on it (in an attempt to fool the police).

If the iPod ref goes back under trivia, it is not the second time an iPod served as a plot device (at least Runaway Jury, in addition to Firewall, preceded Inside Man).

deposit box number[edit]

Does anyone remember the deposit box number? I know it ended in 2. I put 292 in the synopsis, but it's probably wrong. Will soemone please correct it, thanks. DrIdiot 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that it was 392 --Phantom784 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw it ... it was 392.

Safety Deposit Box[edit]

How did Dalton Russel know a safety deposit box had things incriminating the bank executive? If someone knows, can we add this to the plot synopsis? --Phantom784 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All he says is, "crimes stink, you can hide them for awhile but they come back eventually" or something around that. Maybe he was a historian. Also the discussio at the top of this page asks that question. -- Psi edit 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep. Safety Deposit Box 1948 #392.…

  • His grandma has told him something.....--Danaide (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe also that the Jewish man with the hearing aids knew. He told a hostage that he taught law on genocide and war crimes, and in the end he is upset that Dalton left the ring inside for Detective Frazier to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelusman (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis section needs to be better written[edit]

Chensiyuan 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a go at cleaning it up, but it still has some chronological inconsistancies. It's difficult to relay the events, since the movie jumps forwards and backwards, and much is revealed at the end. Iorek85 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

built in 1948 and opened in 1948 safety deposit box #392...just saw the movie

Agree, the plot section, at least the section towards the end that I focused on, was somewhat out of order and needs some re-ordering. I'd do it myself but the movie was so mediocre I have no interest.Bdavid1111 (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PSP videogame[edit]

Can I ask why you thought the psp game was meant to be GTA? I'm not debating the fact, but when I saw the movie I immediately thought of the 50 Cent game, "Bulletproof", which had similar gameplay and drew some attention because of its outrageous violence. This assumption seemed to be reinforced in the movie, because after Russel asks the kid about the point of the game, he replies, "It's like 50 says, 'Get rich or die trying'".

Anyway, it's not a big deal, and as I have not played GTA: LCS or Bulletproof, I can't say one way or another. Joeytsai 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be GTA, as GTA is the one with the controversies over extensive violence (remember Jack Thompson?). Anyhow it doesn't really matter either way. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The game was the Fiddy game, with the second half "Kill Dat Nigga" faked.

The PSP is a WiFi enabled device, and almost every game for it has a Internet-enabled multiplayer aspect, with the ability to go onto the Internet as well. I admit that the robbers might not have known this, but anyone with a sliver of a brain who owns a PSP knows that it could've been used to communicate with the outside world. Was this just a flub on Lee's part or a movie-breaking aspect? PratzStrike 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The child was probably too young to know that, and usually parents don't know too much about the systems which their children use. (Ex: that he was actually playing "Bulletproof" or "GTA" or whatever, when most parents of 9 3/4 year old children who monitor what their kids play wouldn't allow it to happen. Crisco 1492 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the game is Bulletproof, not GTA.

"Plot Fault"[edit]

Re: the tank top thing... I'm not great with remembering details, so I could be wrong about this, but wasn't the girl with the tank top one of the robbers, not a hostage? It was probably a hint, not a plot hole. --Ryon 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember, there were two characters with tank tops, one was a hostage, the other was one of the robbers --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you call it story it#s real o.k. like this. A plot means just one sentence and I think it#s difficault to find the right one for that film.--Danaide (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.198.104.147 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)==Inside man?== The old Rabbi had two headphones with different colors (one red and one white). When the police interrogated him and asked him why they were different, he said it was to distinguish which was for the left ear and which one was for the right. However, as I remember, Russell had worn one white earphone when he entered the bank that was identical to the Rabbi's, thus indicating that they were communicating with each other even before the robbery began. This would make sense in that in the end of the movie it is revealed that the Rabbi is related to the Russell (both were in the black van). So does this mean that the Rabbi was the inside man? I'll have to find some sources to verify this though. (though most likely the inside man refers to Russel hiding within the walls of the bank)--TBC??? ??? ??? 05:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they were "hearing aids", not headphones. Second, I don't think that title actually meant an inside man that way, it may just be that Clive Owen stayed inside the building the whole time or something. -- Cbrown1023 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the identity of the inside man, the question must be posed, how would they know of the existence of the box 392 and the contents of it. Perhaps the bank manager knew of the hidden nature of the box, and further snooping revealed the contents, causing him to approach the "Chaim" character who then contacted "Dalton" for his perfect planning.

Why o why?[edit]

The one bit of this film that I didn't understand is: Why would the guy that helped out the Nazis keep a documented note of it saying "this man helped out the Nazis"? I mean, he should've thrown it in a fire and destroyed it years ago if he wanted to hide a secret. What an idiot! Maybe this question would be better posed at the IMDB. --Dangherous 11:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he wanted proof if he was ever arrested as a war criminal ( I did this but not this, this or this... ) , maybee he couldnt throw it away due to guilt or maybe he was simply pround of what he had done. 91.128.113.90 (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall the first scene where he is told that branch is being robbed, it takes him a few seconds to react - perhaps he simply forgot about it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.245.97 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Spike Lee secret?[edit]

Just saw the movie and enjoyed it, but chuckled to see FDNY represented by Engine 332, instead of E4, E6, or E10 who are all in the neighbourhood. This is a company from deep in Brooklyn, their house is at 165 Bradford Street. So is this another link to his childhood and some of his other films? or was it just a screw up in continuity? [Maplekey - 22:56 23-05-06]

The hole.[edit]

What was the purpose of digging that hole in the floor? They mentioned that a sewage line was exposed, but that was the last it was shown. ---Jackel 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Spoiler) I believe it was so Clive Owen's character could use it as a potty. Rockpocket 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I considered this, but I figured there had to be a better reason. It would have been far more sensible to simply bring along some sealed "disposal bags" of some sort. I'm pretty sure sewage lines like that would be under pressure, and would need some kind of mechanism to allow a person to do his business directly into it.---Jackel 21:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same Answer as Rockpocket gave: [1]
Question here too at New York Observer: When did he find the time to dig a hole into the sewer system under the bank and hide out for a week without anyone noticing (or smelling) anything suspicious?[2]
Page dedicated to the philosophical reasons behind this hole [3]
Signed: Travb (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sewage line under pressure ? Maybe on an aircraft but not in a building. 86.25.245.97 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarisation[edit]

This movie plot sounds alot lke what it says at http://imdb.com/title/tt0454848/plotsummary

Plot Spoiler

IMDB

""Inside Man" is the story of a tough cop, Detective Frazier (Denzel Washington), who matches wits with a clever bank robber, Dalton (Clive Owen). As the dangerous cat-and-mouse game unfolds, a wild card emerges: Madaline (Jodie Foster), a power broker with a hidden agenda, who injects even more instability into an already volatile situation."

Wikipedia

"Inside Man is the story of detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) who matches wits with a clever bank robber Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) in a tense hostage drama. As the dangerous cat-and-mouse game unfolds, a wild card emerges: a power broker Madeline White (Jodie Foster) with a hidden agenda injects more instability into an already volatile situation."

Who's copying from whom?

24.237.198.91 11:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe no one's copying, they could be written by the same author. Also, if no one says who copied who, it doesn't matter and the plot may have changed already. -- Cbrown1023 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Successful Film Directed by a African-American?[edit]

Can someone clarify/use sources on that statement? It's found in the Trivia section and it sorta bothers me as I don't see any sources.

I went ahead and deleted it, because it's not. John Singleton's 2 Fast 2 Furious made more than it both domestically and internationally.

The diamonds[edit]

Diamonds! Diamonds beyond your wildest dreams! Seriously though, the article states that no actual robbery occurred. However, there were diamonds in the safe deposit box, and some suggestion that the robber took one or more of them: the narrator-robber, near the end of the movie, states that he 'did it for the money.' Was this wealth to come from diamonds he stole, or from blackmail based on the documents? White also alluded to the burglar's intention to steal something else, saying that the robber doesn't plan on 'keeping [the documents] under his matress.'

So, did a robbery occur after all? Alksub 10:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was officially no robbery involved because the robbers didn't take anything that had a paper trail (i.e. banks know the amount of money in their vaults to the last cent, they didn't take anything from the other safe deposit boxes). The diamonds in the UNDECLARED safety deposit box, 392, Owen's character took with him and since their existence was intentionally hidden by the owner Arthur Case, he can't declare them stolen. The Cartier ring Dalton Russell left behind to raise questions (Cartier has records of every major buyer they have since their founding and so can trace the ring's ownership) regarding the incident. Even White did not know about the diamonds existence only that something important was in the deposit box. A sort of divertion within divertions. The whole plan practically killed two birds with one stone. Dalton Russell managed to steal a huge amount of untraceable diamonds and raise questions about the origins with how Case acquired the ring which is Nazi loot. The documents Russell probably kept for safekeeping.

  • To me there are to answers possible, on asking who stole the diamonds.

A) Russell stole some and the envelope and then gave one diamond to Mr. Police officer. B) It#s real buddhy stuff, nobody steals anything because it belongs to them! The variants aren't interpretetive, they are wooven in the action!--Danaide (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine White & Arthur Case repartee[edit]

It's just nitpicking but I changed the conversation between White and Case more accurately (saw the movie with subtitles). White tends to dangle veiled hints and use whatever she knows about anyone to swing her power brokerings to her favor.

"We've listed you as his reference"[edit]

That is not what the character Madeline White said to the character Arthur Case, she said (it's at around 1:50:25 in the movie) "we have listed you as a reference" - to show to Bin Ladens nephew that White's influence/power-broking/dealings has no moral limits to work with contemporary, american "worst enemy". "We've listed you as his reference" would'nt make sense; why should I've referenced a friend of mine to get a job done? White also did not say it to enrage Case, she said it to show-case that for the right price, White is willing to do anything, and that Case' own past actions in known human history in WorldWar2 furthered White to deal successfully w. Bin Laden's nephew. I changed the quote correctly Archangel Michael 11:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I remembered too, but I forgot to change it. Anyway, whether or not White said the quote to enrage Case wasn't the issue, it was merely to point out Case's reaction to what she said. Considering the quote that she was purchasing a co-op for bin Laden's nephew, she meant she would use Case as a reference for the buy, after all what other kind of reference would she need from him -a client not friend? She didn't say it for the nephew's benefit, whose transaction was already in process during her introductory scene. Another example of this is the mayor, who has no direct interest in the robbery at all but she still managed through a favor to make him insert her into the situation. It's called leverage.

Major plot element missing[edit]

The Jewish guy in the car at the end was behind everything (see first discussion topic). This is not mentioned at all! —☆ CieloEstrellado 08:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish guy is just another accomplice that just so happened to be in the bank before the crime occured. Technically, all the accomplices (not Clive Owen), were unknown because they kept switching the rooms of random hostages, so that way, all the hostages saw everyone once. -- Cbrown1023 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is possible the Rabbi may have been the 'Inside Man', because 1) he knew all the bank employees, and 2) was an older Rabbi and possibly related to the Jewish family, who thus may have presumably had a special reason to be interested in 'hunting' war criminals from the Nazi era. It is thus possible that the Rabbi was actually the person who did the original research, finding this bank, and discovering the undocumented safety deposit box. Especially as he asks specifically about the missing ring. Aaronwinborn 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He says in the movie that he lectures on issues including "war reparations." He doesn't need a first hand knowledge of the ring or documents. It could be something he uncovered in the course of his research. Mykll42 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It#s interpretation to say the old Jew was behind everything. He just sat there in the car and was victimezed by bankrobbers.

It might be, but there is no hint which says it is. The suspense canon works on possiblities and there are different leaders of this game in.--Danaide (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the rabbi mentioned his nephew knew about diamonds to Denzel. Made me think the ring at the end connected him to Clive. It's subtle but seems to fit. Also this movie doesn't really have any worthless dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.164.191 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VOLKSWAGEN[edit]

Is false the information about minorities building Volkswagen cars in concentration camps, there was only one factory located in Wolsfburg; and there is no proof of force labor used in that factory, Which indeed was a symbol of the Nazi regimen, but the English Army preserved it and start making VW's after the war.

I'm going to remove that part of the trivia. even if all of that WAS true, it doesn't really have any relation to the plot. VWs are very common cars.

Pen recorder availability[edit]

Removed the pen recoder reference that stated that it wasn't available on Amazon.com. It is: [4]

sequel confirmed[edit]

http://imdb.com/title/tt0893499/

Guy on the couch at the end[edit]

How come is it that no one mentions there is someone sleeping on the couch when Denzel goes back home to his wife and she is waiting for him on her bed? It seems to be his partner, but what the heck is he doing on that couch? It she a prostitute or something? 74.15.145.31 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Dude[reply]

I supposed I always assumed that it was the criminal brother mentioned in the early scene of the phone call between Frazier and his girlfriend.
Please sign your comments. I also thought that it was the criminal brother.— « hippi ippi » 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis and spoiler markers?[edit]

IMO, the synopsis needs a great deal of work. The first three sentences spoil the entire film. Shouldn't a synopsis have those built into the text itself, rather than keep them in an introductory sentence? I'm going to attempt a slight rewrite on that section. HelloAnnyong 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a Dogma reference?[edit]

The article claims that a picture of Buddy Christ from the movie Dogma appears in the film. However, I am not sure if that is really the case. In two scenes (around minutes 57 and 97 on the PAL DVD) you can see various images of Jesus on the wall. None of which, however, looks like the Buddy Christ parody, if you look at those scenes frame by frame. Maybe someone mistook a regular Jesus picture for the parody from Dogma.

Cultural references section[edit]

At the end of the cultural references section, the last one says that there are numerous references at the end of the movie.....But not much is explained 71.119.251.100 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing[edit]

While I appreciate the many edits that have been made to clean this page up, I think that moving the plot section further down to avoid spoilers went a bit too far. Every other movie article on Wikipedia has the plot right at the top, and it belongs there, IMO. If anything, I would want the plot section marked with spoilers, but looking at other articles for movies with major plot twists (Se7en, Memento, etc), they aren't marked either. Actually, I would go so far as to say that the subsection titles in the Plot section may give certain parts of the film away. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood. I think we're in the midst of a broad change in policy that has no distinct resolution at the moment. Recent changes to WP:SPOILER have left us with this unfortunate situation. It's my opinion -- though I'm not sure where else to voice it -- that the articles you mention (yep, those are some of my other favorite movies, and I have the same concern there too) -- well, I just think the resolution of the mods to SPOILER policies should allow better utility for movie articles for those who haven't seen the movies, or who want an encyclopedic abstract of the film without having it spoiled outright. This just seems "right" to me... I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. But this is a bone to pick with evolving policy -- not with my good man HelloAnnyong.
Regarding the subsection headings that you think are spoilers in themselves -- C'mon, dude! Be Bold! Change 'em yourself! :-) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 00:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section[edit]

I added this piece at the Trivia: The fake recording that the bank robbers were playing is indeed part of a speech from Enver Hoxha, deceased dictator of Albania; however the Albanian girl has a very thick Slavic accent while speaking, therefore impossible to be an Albanian

I assume that is has to be there, that's why i did put it in, however if anyone think it has to go somewhere else, suggestions are welcome.Illuminati 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

She is neither Albanian nor Slavic. According to her official website, she is Romanian. http://www.florinapetcu.com/resume.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of languages, the cops said the language on tape might be Russian, Polish, Hungarian (?) or Bulgarian. It turns out to be Albanian. The languages mentioned (except Hungarian) are Slavic, Albanian is not. As a European I can tell the difference between these langauges, although I don't speak or understand them. If you are interested in languages and have travelled Europe you should know those differences. So my question is, was this just a production mistake or was it Lee's intention to show american intolerance towards european languages (no offence)? Thanks! BTW, there is scene where D. Washington asks one of the hostages/robbers something like "Albanian? Armenian? Whatever..."--80.133.246.209 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Day Afternoon[edit]

I think it is worth noting the many references and homages too the film Dog Day Afternoon two of the same actors are used Lionel Pina delivered the pizza in both movies. Marcia Jean Kurtz plays a hostage named Miriam in both films, these two can not be coincidental it had to have been a deliberate choice by spike lee. Not to mention the direct quote from Denzel Washington's character "No one gets a plane. You saw 'Dog Day Afternoon.' You're stalling." There are probably even more things that I missed, but I think it is worth noting.

(Thefirstterm (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Pizza Boxes[edit]

On the pizza boxes given by the police to the robbers has "Sal's Famous Pizzeria" printed on them (atleast the ones that are visible). This is an illusion to Do the right thing, another Spike Lee film. Should it be mentioned anywhere? 143.195.170.90 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell[edit]

Does anyone who made a famous statement that it is your own intelligence that forms the cell for you and furthermore it is a cell which we cannot escape. Unfortuntaly, I can't remember who made this statement and I didn't understand it, when I first read it, but the longer I think about is the more meaning it gains. Thank you for looking, if there is a volunteer.Sha-Sanio (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Fabolous Thriller[edit]

  • For the first time an afro-amercian shots a film like hitchkock had done some. Fabolous! This Spike Lee, from yesterday to 2006 he did little dirty films, telling dirty stories and suddenly a filmakers hand grows.

He was kissed by a rose... and so to say it#s somehow a buddhist fabel. That means public should learn something by looking at films. A robbery, who hasn#t real took place is visible in fantastic light and camera angles. A circle of development was broken up and he starts in a new dimension. Me lent!--Danaide (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Point of Film missed[edit]

Spike Lee's point has been entirely missed by all posters. Blacks do care about the Holocaust! That point was very eloquently put forward without one character having to say it. By the way, the bank chairman said that he performed philanthropy to make up for his Nazi ways, but he was the real villain of the movie. No amount of apologetics can wipe that away.

But even more poignantly, the smile on the African-American detective's face upon discovering the reward he had been *given* demonstrated the need that we all share to be accepted and acknowledged. The Jewish man gave the African-American man what was tantamount to reparations that are normally reserved in that case to heirs of the Holocaust, and the detective felt a sense of belonging because of that gift.

I want to give acknowledgement to my wife, Barbara EBj for her deep insight into the true message and meaning behind this remarkable film.

Dhjohns (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake weapons[edit]

It should be noted somewhere in the synopsis that the robbers were using fake weapons the entire time, as revealed near the end. 76.107.217.221 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the the investigation into Frazier[edit]

Can someone please mention the mising money ($140K) from the check casing place that Frazier was being investigated for? I don't have the time to work it out...vulture19 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Inside Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spike's tweet this morning that this was his #1 box office success makes me want to take a closer look at this. I will review it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The external links tool to the right says one external link has gone bad.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not WP:V in certain places. The production notes are a 32 page document. You have to name it as a reference and then in each place that you cite it, you have to use a page number. Although the document does not have printed page numbers, in Reader, you can identify the page number.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • The last phrase of the first paragraph ("Christopher Plummer, Willem Dafoe and Chiwetel Ejiofor also feature.") is ungrammatical. "also feature" should be "are also featured".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "a positive critical response" to "a generally positive critical response" to clarify that rather than one positive response it was the general summary of responses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read your comments, and made significant edits to the article, as requested.--SuperSonic2000 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Principal photography
  • I have made significant edits to the article, as per your recommendations. I have listed the page numbers to the production notes, edited the external links, using the external links tool, and made the requests edits in Principal Photography. --SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Design
Music
Box office
Images
GA Review

Thank you, TonyTheTiger, for taking the time to review this article. I have made some changes to the article to the best of my ability. -- SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design

I made edits to several sentences in the article, in relation to using a person's full name, before simply their last name. --SuperSonic2000 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

In researching information for this article, I could not find any information on soundtrack sales.-- SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

A research error on my part. Removed the sentence in its entirety.-- SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No readd and say that it was at the time number one but subsequently passed by Training Day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have re-read the article. In regards to the film's opening weekend gross, I have re-created the sentence: "Inside Man held the record for the highest opening weekend gross as a Denzel Washington starring vehicle, surpassing Man on Fire (2004) which debuted with $22.7 million on its first weekend." It should be noted that this record was ultimately surpassed by American Gangster (2007) was opened with more than $43 million on opening weekend.--SuperSonic2000 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images
    • Thank you very much for the pass, TonyTheTiger, and to everyone else who helped me in editing this article! So happy to have finally gotten Inside Man at GA status!--SuperSonic2000 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the negative reviews cited is highly inaccurate[edit]

The cited bad review (currently #46), titled "Slicker Spike Breaks the Bank | Observer", is incredibly inaccurate to the extent that I think it is a poor example of a bad review. I just watched this movie and despite liking it, I wanted to see and read any bad reviews. I read the review in full and the concrete examples the author gives as problems with the movie are factually wrong and easily verified as such. It seems like the author of the review merely skimmed the movie rather than watching it (speculation: perhaps to meet a deadline?). I think it's good to cite bad reviews, but this one is so error riddled, I think it should be removed or replaced.

Some errors:

  • "all [the main robber] wants is one safety deposit-box with no number"

the box clearly has a number

  • "When did he find the time to dig a hole into the sewer system..."

the movie clearly establishes that this is the only thing the robbers did during their time other than shuffle hostages around and raid the aforementioned safety deposit box

  • "What happened to Denzel Washington’s expulsion from the NYPD?"

this is clearly dealt with at the end of the movie

  • "why does he steal a diamond ring so valuable it could pay off the national debt?"

he never steals the ring

  • "When he shows it to the cowering Christopher Plummer, why is it no longer a ring?"

it's clearly slipped over his middle finger in the movie while he flips off Arthur Case.

  • "Did he steal two diamonds?"

no

  • "What happened to the bank robbers?"

they pick up Clive Owen's character at the end as he leaves the bank

  • "Why do they just disappear from the movie?"

they don't

  • "it’s never clear what they wanted in the first place."

it's clear that the whole robbery was about stealing diamonds from Arthur Case while collecting the evidence needed to prove he worked with the Nazis.

Sr105 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that they stole several diamonds but left the big one, on the Cartier ring, behind, so as to cast suspicion on Case. When Russell (Clive Owen) leaves the bank, he slips one of the stolen diamonds into Frazier's pocket, to use for proposing to his girlfriend. So there were stolen diamonds stolen; the Cartier one wasn't; and one of the stolen ones was "returned" to Frazier. SchnitteUK (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Box 392 ignored for a week?[edit]

I need some help. Trying to figure something out, but I can't. Hugely disjointed after watching one of my favorite movies again this weekend, Inside Man, and finding a gaping hole in the plot. Can you tell me if I'm missing something? Dude's in a hole for a week. The day he comes out, Denzel finds the ring, a note, and some gum in box 392. Here's my question: how come Nazi bank villain didn't go check his precious safety deposit box FOR A WHOLE WEEK?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3AEE:EE10:8503:7AF5:95A3:ACAB (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you! At least one person on the internet saw it. 2001:16B8:2AFD:4C00:E134:737A:46C1:54E3 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That can be explained. Case thought it would draw attention (at least of his employees) if he went to check on the mysterious unrecorded deposit box shortly after the robbery. His plan was to wait a while and check it then, when this wouldn't be linked to the robbery. SchnitteUK (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Inside Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inside Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The locksmith?[edit]

The safety deposit box was opened by a locksmith for Russell. Where did he come from? Where did he go? Vanished into thin air. He was Caucasian male in 40’s, over-weight, and about 5’6”. Trooper63 (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inside_Man&oldid=1207719963"