Watch No Way Out For Free

It is a performances centric movie

How sad is this?

Good movie but grossly overrated

Best movie of this year hands down!

US Navy Lt. Commander Tom Farrell (Kevin Costner) is a Pentagon officer assigned to the personal staff of the scheming Secretary of Defense David Brice (Gene Hackman). At a formal ball in Washington DC, Farrell is first introduced to Brice through the latter's fanatically devoted general council, Scott Pritchard (Will Patton). Exhibiting the most suggestive body language at the ball, sexy Susan Atwell (Sean Young) also meets Farrell. As their chemistry immediately clicks, they have a quick tryst; the sex scene in the limo is fairly noteworthy. Although Atwell is the mistress of the married Brice, her affair with Farrell continues for several months. Meanwhile Brice has as a chief rival, Senator Duvall (Howard Duff), who wants the Secretary of Defense to approve of the "Phantom Submarine," which is the size of an aircraft carrier. Brice is against the proposed project because the sub's huge size will make it easy for the Soviet Russian enemy to detect. Knowing that his lover has been with another man, Brice confronts her in the apartment that he has paid for her. In a jealous rage he strikes her so hard that she falls backward over the balcony railing, striking the lower level and breaking her neck. In a panic, Brice calls his devoted servant Pritchard, who masterminds a plan to protect his boss from scandal and pin the crime on someone else. Pritchard's plan is to search for a supposed mole in the Defense Department: a Russian spy sent by the Soviet KGB to America while young and who can pass as a real American. His code name is "Yuri." Pritchard's stratagem is to blame Atwell's death on this fictional lover "Yuri" and thus deflect attention away from the Secretary of Defense. Of course it was Farrell who had just left Atwell's apartment before Brice arrived and killed her. Farrell knows the killer has to be Brice. As Pritchard needs a front man, navy officer Farrell, who performed a heroic act at sea, is chosen. While the CID (Criminal Investigation Division of Army Intelligence) removes items from Atwell's apartment, Farrell is somewhat suspicious as he is ordered to report only to Brice or Pritchard, and to avoid the FBI, CIA, or the Washington Police. In a short time Farrell will realize that the criminal investigation will lead to him as the fall guy. The clues, though untainted, are all stacked against him!Kevin O'Brien (Leon Russom) of the FBI is suspicious, though, of the motives of the Brice team. When an associate says that Atwell was the mistress of either Brice or Pritchard, O'Brien retorts, "Pritchard is homosexual!" Then Senator Duvall comes into Brice's office to do business on his pet project, the proposed submarine. Pritchard makes a vague promise to him, to get him away. Meanwhile Farrell is convinced of the cover-up. He says to Pritchard that even if "Yuri" exists, he did not murder Atwell! Farrell tries to quit the investigation but is without success. In the denouement, the Brice team has brought two witnesses into the Pentagon building. So, as the workers begin to leave their jobs for the day, all of the exits are sealed except for the main one. The witnesses are on the watch for "Yuri." Once the building has emptied out, it's floor to floor, and room to room. How can Farrell escape? At the very end there is a huge twist that you will not see coming! Although it is a military setting, "No Way Out" owes much to "The Big Clock" (1948), where magazine journalist Ray Milland is framed by powerful publishing tycoon Charles Laughton for the murder of the latter's mistress. Laughton, like Hackman's Brice, doesn't really know the identity of the innocent man that he is framing. Milland, like Costner, is picked to lead an investigation against himself. The actors all do well in "No Way Out," with Costner and Patton taking the top honors with their electrifying performances. Filming locations were in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. See this movie because it's a good one!

There is very little I can add to the very good reviews posted by others here over the years. I first saw this movie shortly after it came out, and I've watched it again periodically since.What surprises me are the reviews that state that the ending is "contrived" or doesn't connect with the main plot, or whatever. I don't get these criticisms. The ending is what makes the entire movie.Today, with all the news about hacking by the Russians in the recent election, this movie seems relevant again, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists. The constant threat posed by "Yuri" throughout the movie should resonate well with today's viewers.

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.

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.