Inside Man

Inside Man (2006)

10 corrected entries

(5 votes)

Corrected entry: When Clive the mastermind blacks out the cameras, the detectives say later that there was a blackout period of only a couple of minutes with no footage of anyone entering or leaving. That means the from the footage just before the robbery you could ascertain who was in the bank and who are the robbers, or if nothing else narrow down the pool, simply by eliminating anyone in the bank already. (00:05:00 - 00:28:00)

Correction: That is assuming that the bank robbers didn't have anyone inside the bank already, which they did. There were only four people in the van at the start, and also four at the very end in the car while they're waiting for Clive Owen, making him the fifth.

Friso94

Corrected entry: The police conclude as that no money was taken, "no crime was committed." However, armed robbery is still a crime, even if nothing is taken. So is taking hostages and controlling the building illegally for several hours, as well as other subtle misuses of bank property. "No crime was committed" is an unrealistic and unprofessional description of what happened.

Correction: They never say "no crime was committed." The Captain tells Frazier, "You've got no robbery, " meaning nothing of value was actually stolen (the diamonds were, but nobody knows that except Case, and he's obviously not going to tell anyone), "you've got no suspects. Nobody's breathing down my neck for answers, I'm not gonna breathe down yours." In other words, because no money was actually taken and no one was physically injured, the politicians don't care about solving the crime, so they aren't pressuring the captain for answers.

tinsmith

Corrected entry: The entire premise of the movie rests on the fact that the leader of the gang of "robbers" sole purpose in invading the bank is to gain possession of papers from Christopher Plummer's private safe deposit box. These papers, we learn, reveal his past ties to the Nazis and have been hidden in a safe deposit box which has not appeared in bank records since the building was built. (1) How did the gang become aware of the existence of the papers at all, and (2) how could they have possibly learned where to look for them?

Correction: Films are not required to spell out every plot detail, and there are no actual holes here, just unanswered questions. The simple answer is that there are real-life organisations devoted to tracking down ex-Nazis and those who profited from dealings with them (who have proven successful in bringing a number of individuals to justice). Case's presence in Europe at the right time and subsequent wealth would be a matter of public record, and would undoubtedly have been enough to raise some degree of suspicion with whatever group ultimately hired Russell's team to 'rob' the bank. The most likely course of events is that they infiltrated somebody into Case's company, who then looked for evidence of his misdeeds. Upon finding the anomaly of an unlisted safety deposit box in Case's own bank (which, frankly, is not the most intelligent place that Case could have chosen), they informed the organisation about this; they deemed it worthy of investigation and, with no other options, took the drastic step of faking a robbery in order to access it.

Tailkinker Premium member

Corrected entry: It's hard to believe that neither a single cop or anyone in the crowd noticed that the foreign "voices" coming from the wire tap was just a recording. It was a single voice, not a conversation, and it had the same pattern, tone, and sound quality (a slight echo) as most recorded speeches.

Correction: The police were more interested in finding out what the recording was saying. The robbers at this point hadn't given much away in details of their plan. Whether or not they believed it was a recording is irrelevant. The bug they had planted was picking up some foreign language that they could not understand and it might have had something to do with the robbery. It was only when the woman who helped with the translation did they realise the recording was all a hoax.

Lummie Premium member

Corrected entry: Clive Owen escapes arrest by building a false wall in the supply room and hiding there for a week, yet none of the regular bank employees seem to notice that their supply room was now about 3 feet smaller.

Correction: Already corrected.

Corrected entry: Clive Owen escapes arrest by building a false wall in the supply room and hiding there for a week, yet none of the regular bank employees seem to notice that their supply room was now about 3 feet smaller.

Correction: The supply room is pretty large with lots of shelves and boxes, and since most employees do not go in there that often during normal working hours, it is very likely that with all the chaos of coming back to work after a hostage/robbery situation, that they were just a little to busy checking out bank records/the vault/etc. to notice.

Jazetopher

Corrected entry: It was said that only two women matched the description of the female suspect. Surely the police should have kept tabs on both those women and this should have led them to capture the entire gang when they come to pick up Clive Owen at the bank after a week.

Correction: Firstly it is unlikely that they kept 24 hour surveillance on both women just because they matched the description. The police were going primarily on the witness accounts in the bank and as shown with the masks and suits worn, it was going to be near impossible to say whether the description of the female suspect was accurate or not. Furthermore the audience knows that Clive Owen's character was involved NOT the police. Even if they followed her, all they would have seen was that some guy got into a car.

Lummie Premium member

Corrected entry: When Denzel Washington shows up at the bank for the first time, the police officer who originally discovered the robbery makes reference to "one of the gunmen". He has only seen one person holding up the bank so how does he know there are more than one gunman?

Correction: There are a few explanations for this. The first is that the officer assumed that there must have been more than one robber. The fact that the robber came outside and would have been leaving a large number of hostages quite a distance away would throw the possibility that someone would have to be watching them to stop them from escaping. Even if he hadn't thought of this, at the time Denzel arrives there has been quite a bit of time since the incident was reported. The police might have suspected or knew there was more than one and told the officer. Finally it could also come down to a character mistake. The officer might have thought there was more than one gunman as many robberies generally involve more than one person.

Lummie Premium member

Corrected entry: Detective Keith Frazier is told by his superior officer to bury the case because no money was stolen, and no one is pressuring him for answers. However just kidnapping 20-30 people at gunpoint is a very serious crime, and it's hard to see how the victims and the media would just allow the case to be buried.

Correction: Also keep in mind the feds would've been swarming all over this case. No way 30 plus people being held at gunpoint would ever get buried, or the mere mention of, in any way shape or form pressure be put on to bury it.

Correction: This is more argumentative than a mistake. The fact that no one was hurt or killed and nothing was stolen is generally going to be the biggest factor about whether to press charges. Add into that there was little to no physical evidence left behind and with all the witnesses unsure and varied about who was behind the siege. Frazier's superior was just being realistic to the situation. Even if he was fascinated to find out why this took place he may just not have the time and resources to dedicate to a case like this. It was unlikely in any event he would be even be able to bring an indictment against those responsible.

Lummie Premium member

Corrected entry: All of the hostages are considered suspects because they blend in with the bad guys, as they were all forced to don matching jumpers. The police are told that there is one woman with the criminals and that she has large breasts. So, while questioning one of the female hostage/suspects, the police ask her to unzip her jumper so they can check out how buxom she is. When she unzips her jumper, she is wearing all of her clothes underneath. This should have revealed her as one of the criminals - because the true hostages had been forced at gunpoint to remove their clothes before putting on the jumpers, which surely the true hostages would have communicated to the police.

Correction: There are two problems with this. Firstly we never see every single part of the plan. We know part of the plan was to confuse and disorientate the hostages. Taking off their clothes was one step but we don't see whether they told them to put them back on later and then put their jumpsuits back. Secondly the fact that she was wearing clothes is hardly solid evidence. It might arise suspicion but not much more.

Lummie Premium member

Revealing mistake: During the final conversation between Detective Frazier and Arthur Case, Frazier holds up his hand with the ring on his middle finger. It is pretty obvious that the hand was inserted into the scene in post production; the hand doesn't move in a natural way and simply looks out of place.

THGhost

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Really? I don't see anything unnatural in the hand's movement at all. Doesn't look at all obvious to me that it was inserted in post-production. After all, Frazier refers to "this ring." They will want it in shot so I'm sure they made sure Washington held it in shot.

Yes, really. Look again. Look at how it moves down and vanishes out of the frame. No human hand moves like that! They didn't have Washington hold it up for the shot and it was inserted later as a pickup shot. See this IMDB goof entry for more details: "During the final conversation between Detective Frazier and Arthur Case..." "a picture of a hand with a ring on the middle finger was inserted into the scene - first moving up into the shot, and then moving down off screen."

THGhost

More mistakes in Inside Man

Dalton Russell: Fact is, all lies, all evil deeds, they stink. You can cover them up for a while, but they don't go away.

More quotes from Inside Man

Trivia: When the pizzas were delivered to the hostages there is a quick shot of the pizza box, which says Sal's pizza. That is the name of the pizza place from Do The Right Thing, another Spike Lee film.

More trivia for Inside Man

Question: This movie left me with more questions than answers. Even after watching it more than once. 1.) Was the fake wall built during the robbery or before? If it was built before, how was this done without the bank employees knowing about it? 2.) What was the purpose of the hole they dug in the floor? I thought this was where they stored the diamonds, but Clive would have had to tear up the floor and dig them up again later, which doesn't make sense. Why couldn't Clive have just brought the diamonds with him behind the wall during the escape? 3.) Wouldn't it have made sense to give each person who came out of the bank a lie detector test to try and weed out the ones who may have been involved? I realize that those tests are voluntary, so that in itself may have helped the police.

Answer: (1) The fake wall was constructed during the robbery - that's why they dragged things out, to give them time to finish the job. (2) The hole in the floor is so that Russell has somewhere to go to the toilet, serving the dual purpose that (a) he doesn't have to sit among piles of his own excrement for a week and (b) no unpleasant smell will build up in the storeroom, which could lead to his discovery. (3) Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable and can be defeated by a suitably disciplined individual. As a result, the NYPD do not use them as a matter of policy. Even if, in this fictional storyline, they did, the unreliability of the tests and their tendency to give false positives is sufficiently well-known that it's likely that many of the witnesses might refuse to avoid the possibility of being incorrectly incriminated by a bad reading. So it wouldn't be likely to help them much anyway and could actively harm their case if it indicated somebody innocent.

Tailkinker Premium member

More questions & answers from Inside Man

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.