GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Dennis Littrell I didn't see this when it came out in 1987 which is just as well because I really enjoyed seeing it the other night. It's a political thriller with Gene Hackman as David Brice, U.S. Secretary of Defense. Brice employs the kind of political machinations usually seen in corrupt congresspersons as he tries to wiggle his way out of a terrible jam. At his side is the particularly sleazy sociopathic Scott Pritchard (Will Patton) who defends his boss with true devotion.Okay what makes this so good? I mean Sean Young is to die for pretty of course and Kevin Costner is just the kind of guy few women can resist. So we've got good eye candy, but what makes "No Way Out" head and shoulders above almost all other thrillers is the oh so ingenious plot. Yes the plot in this movie is very clever—some might say too clever, especially the ending which some viewers may feel is unlikely or tacked on. It is a doozy of an ending and it follows some mesmerizing twists and turns along the way. I found most of them plausible, and I think the only thing wrong with the ending was Kevin Costner's accent! The screen play was adapted from Kenneth Fearing's novel "The Big Clock" which I haven't read. There was also a movie with the same title from 1948 starring Ray Milland, Maureen O'Sullivan, and Charles Laughton. I do know that while "No Way Out" is about the Pentagon and the intrigue centers around the secretary of defense and a naval officer, Commander Tom Farrell (Costner) "The Big Clock" was about a publishing tycoon. Apparently what is the same is some kind of similar action removed from the backdrops.I find most thrillers have too many plot holes and implausibilities while relying too heavily on action and chase scenes, car crashes, etc. Here most of the chase scenes are on foot. What made me decide to take a look at this was to see the young Sean Young again. Who could forget all the close-ups of her face in "Blade Runner" (1982).By the way, the title "No Way Out" is especially apt since it really does look like neither Brice nor Farrell have any way out. The plot is that diabolical.--Dennis Littrell, author of "Dennis Littrell's True Crime Companion"

Leofwine_draca NO WAY OUT is a bit of an oddity. For the first hour or so, I watched this in complete indifference, waiting for the real 'plot' to begin. Watching Costner and Young sleeping together was repetitive and pretty dated, full of '80s tunes and cheesy scenes, like the one in the back of the limousine. Then Hackman's character sets the plot off for real, and suddenly I was hooked. I was behind Costner's character all the way, and I loved the way the scriptwriter trapped him within the imprisoning confines of the Pentagon, hunting for a wronged man whom he knew to be himself. I thought the suspense and twists played out very well. Often in suspense movies, writers are happy to throw out all the old clichés – such as the ticking bomb – but the computer recognition software really makes this film and gives it an edge over its competition.There was a sense of urgency that I rarely find elsewhere in the movies. My heart was pounding as Costner's plight became ever more deadly and how his enemies were gradually closing in. A COMMANDO-style action set-piece in a shopping mall threatens to destroy credibility, but then the suspense comes back stronger than ever, lasting right until the thrilling ending. Then we get an extra coda, one of those big 'twist' endings that throws the whole previous film on its head. I have to say that I disliked this twist. It didn't feel real, and it felt tacked-on as a last minute thing ("oh, wouldn't that be cool?"). To be honest, I would have preferred the film without it, but there we go.A strong cast delivers a fine script in this one. It's one of Costner's best movies, and Hackman's multi-layered villain is another solid entry in the actor's career. Will Patton is delightfully evil as the slimy aide. Other good characters are George Dzundza as Costner's wheelchair-bound buddy and Marshall Bell and Chris D as a couple of hulking hit men. NO WAY OUT is one of those films that doesn't have to have shoot-outs every five minutes to be exciting – in fact, the action scenes are few and far between, and I counted just a couple of them. No, here the urgency comes from the well-plotted situation the central character finds himself in – and it's a rare beast to find a film so enthralling because of that.

slightlymad22 Continuing my plan to watch every Kevin Costner movie in order, I come to No Way Out from 1987.Plot In A Paragraph: Lt. Cdr. Tom Farrell (KC) is a naval officer assigned to newly appointed Secretary of Defense David Brice (Gene Hackman). When there is a murder, he gets caught up in a life or death situation.No Way Out is a superior thriller, that I personally think is brilliant, and I'm constantly surprised that so few people have seen it. We have seen the main character of a movie being innocent, despite all the evidence saying he is guilty a million times before. But the idea of a man running an investigation that, unless he can uncover evidence to the contrary, will lead ultimately to his own destruction is genius. The story is so tight, and the performances are so good, I found myself really caught up in the movie and really cared about the characters. That's always the sign of a great thriller, when you care about the characters. It's well directed, well acted, has some unbelievable tension (claustrophobic at times) and a couple of cool twists (including one I never seen coming when I first saw it) that constantly keep you on your toes, and the way it all comes together at the end is nothing short as brilliant. We have had a Quirky Costner (Fandango) Cowboy Costner (Silverado) and Serious Costner (The Untouchables) here we get two Costner's for the price of one!! An Action Costner and a Sexy Costner. KC's performance is a lot more complex than his previous work, and for me, it's the best performance of his career so far. I think it's perfect casting. A lot depends on his ability to convince us that he is facing some truly dangerous dilemmas and his performance is excellent.Gene Hackman (maybe Hollywood's most consistent performer) does what he does. Will Patton is brilliant, and is clearly the inspiration for Smithers and his adoration/devotion to Mr Burns in The Simpsons. We also get a good supporting performance from George Dzundza too. One of the movies flaws is the 80's electro soundtrack is a little over used. I could have easily given this movie a 10/10

Simon Massey 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.