No Way Out (1987)

I'll make it short because I don't want to spoil to anyone- This movie is excellent. While the cinematography might not be that special, the plot is mind-blowing. And so are the characters. Each character is very unique and you can see it in the film- While the MC {Main character} is quite the generic-good-guy (Which is unique to the environment he's in, so it's not THAT generic), everyone else around him are special in their tone and behavior and even their looks. Now, the plot is also very good. Even amazingly good. Spoiler free- The MC is a commander in the navy who is recruited to the pentagon, and he dates the senators mistress. (No spoilers thus far. It's the beginning plot). You might think it's a weird drama flick- But hell no! It's a very engaging thriller with an amazing ending!I recommend it very much! The beginning might bore you, but it will just make the ending more amazing.

It takes quite a while to get going and the film is firmly rooted in the 80s, not just from a storyline perspective, but also in terms of its production. The only meaningful female role is poorly developed, although Young does her best with what she has and the relationship between her and Costner feels forced. The score is also dreadful. But once the main plot kicks in, this becomes an intriguing conspiracy thriller as Costner attempts to stay one step ahead of the investigation he is heading. Hackman is surprisingly low-key here, but Will Patton as his right-hand man and Costner's main antagonist is good value. It is also a film that is defined by its great ending, a scene that is surprisingly low-key in its delivery, but works extremely well in the context of the overall film. It's a shame that repeat viewings don't really offer much to reevaluate characters and plot points as a result but it still makes for a clever resolution.

Question : Did the mistresses of ministers in Washington ever get taken to a inaugural balls after the sixties were over ? ? Because that seems like the most unprofessional thing to do ever. Mix in a flimsy espionage plot , stupid scenario's wherein people are keeping things that could destroy them in plain sight and what do you get ? No way out! No way out : A terribly over budgeted , poorly written snooze fest that as a bonus shows early versions of things we would later see done much better in the Jack Ryan films only without any of the existing international aspects of it , or any good character building moments , or James Earl Jones, or Alec Baldwin/ Harrison Ford , or anything remotely exciting really. No this is actually none of that when you watch it now that the once exciting technological aspects of it are both outdated and cliché. I have heard that this picture is a remake of a film made in 1948, If that is the case it would a lot more sense in my opinion. Although some then impressive tech is featured , It is basically a string of human errors on the part of the conspirators that exposes them. And the mistress being at the inaugural ball would have been less of a issue when there was less of a focus on affairs like these form the press , and less ways it could be recorded. But in 1987 the usage of limousines to pick up your mistress seems tenfolds more decadent than it would have done in 1948 . I suggest you watch that version , because this film's depiction of Washington intrigues was outdated even then. It also perfectly explains why Sean Young's character doesn't seem to have much of a professional career ahead and moves around the Washington social circuit without being involved in politics or government. This would make sense in the forties , it does not in the late eighties ( or at least it's painful to watch now ).Costner's Naval officer is a characterless Mary Stu in every single way h doesn't have much to play with , but when he does get to be angry or something his acting style often doesn't match the style of other actors in the scene. Gene Hackman in the same year he reprises his role as Lex Luthor in the now infamous superman IV once again plays a supposed genius ( they out right have people call him that actually ) but comes across more as a emotionally unstable autistic man at times, and frankly the character just turns into a big child towards the end. It's just pathetic to watch ; his character makes such weird mistakes and takes such ridiculous risks you can't take him seriously anymore.The chemistry between Costner and Young reminds me of twilight a lot. The script was apparently filled with looks that are supposed to convey 'a silent understanding' or something like that , but it never works!Hackman is seemingly over compensating for basically every poor delivery and stale look of all scenes he isn't in and he just turns into a caricature of a good actor near the end. Also the blatantly homosexual women fearing adviser having a clear crush on Hackman's character is incredibly sickening to watch as the character progresses. You know how in Django Unchained you are intrigued by the complicated relationship between Mr.Candy and Stephen ? well its nothing like that. It's just really sad. As a whole i would call this film overrated and Arcadian.

As political thrillers go, "No Way Out" is right up there, surprising in its lasting effectiveness. Put simply, it holds up, and if you can abide the unfortunate score, then you're in for something pretty cool. Costner proves his leading man capabilities and the whole cast is good (it even features an uncharacteristically emotive Will Patton). I guess it's a good rule of thumb that if you need a corrupt politician, you can't go wrong with Gene Hackman. Hackman's reliable in just about any role, but even more so here.Without spoiling anything, this has a really memorable ending; the kind that just sorta sneaks up behind you and punches you in the mouth. But even knowing what ultimately happens in this story, I still got caught up in the main espionage plot: Costner trying to outsmart a frameup as the walls close in; almost enough to make me forget the final twist. That says a lot about the craft behind such a movie.7/10