Snake Eyes (1998) User Reviews

A Three Ring Circus of a Movie- I Loved It!

[bababear · 20 August 1998]

Overblown, overdirected, overacted: that's why I always enjoy DePalma's movies. He made the statement that the camera lies 24 times a second, and SNAKE EYES plays on that theme.

De Palma's camera is constantly in motion, roaming through the arena, casino , and hotel as if it had a life of its own. At the beginning of the film we watch Nick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) as he swims through the sewer (his words) that is the Atlantic City casino world. He tells us, "This isn't a beach town. It's a sewer. It's my sewer, I am the king."

It's literally a dark and stormy night. A hurricane (a tv reporter is pressured to refer to it as a 'tropical depression' on the air) is coming ashore, and 14,000 people are gathered at a casino complex to watch a prizefight.

There's a shooting during the fight, and Cage orders the exits sealed; who would go outside into a hurricane remains a mystery, but anyhow. There are two mysterious women involved in the incident, and as time passes he realizes that there were lots of people involved, possibly even his longtime friend Navy Commander Dunne (Gary Sinese) who is as straight-arrow as Cage's character is sleazy.

By the end of the story Cage is working toward redemption- even though during the early part of the film it's made clear that he sees everything as having a price.

There's one point where he is offered a million dollars to reveal where one of the women (she knows a lot- too much- about a defense contract, and was talking to the Secretary of Defense when he was shot) is hiding. And there 's a very real chance that he might give in, or be unable to protect her when the danger gets intense.

Men in De Palma's films have a way of failing to come through for women in critical situations. An executive couldn't save his wife in OBSESSION. A young actor couldn't protect a mysterious, beautiful woman in BODY DOUBLE. The nicest guy in school couldn't keep the outcast/prom queen CARRIE from humiliation and its awful consequences. In the superb BLOW OUT a movie soundman rescues a young woman from a sinking car early in the story, but is too late to save her from a madman at the film's conclusion.

So there is no guarantee of a happy ending. Self doubt weighs heavily in De Palma's films, and often people's best efforts are to no avail.

Admittedly David Koepp and De Palma's script is something of a problem. There's a complex conspiracy underfoot, and conspiracies are low on my list of compelling things- I got burned out on them in the seventies.

Far more compelling is the great fun that Cage has with his character. Boy, does he get to chew scenery here. Constantly in motion, talking on his cell phone (even during a hurricane; some of my friends can't use theirs when a cloud passes over the sun), interacting with the low life characters around the casino.

And, oh, does DePalma have fun with the whole thing. Of course, nothing is what it seems to be. He retells the action from the viewpoint of this or that character: we sometimes literally see what happened through that character's eyes. An important setpiece in which we finally see what really happened in clear perspective uses split screen imagery- and in the theatre where we saw SNAKE EYES the use of stereo sound was an integral part of the seperation of images.

For all the bravado of his performance, I was impressed with Cage's ability and willingness to share the screen with other actors. In some of the retellings he is a supporting character or featured extra, and as an actor he's more than willing to let our attention shift to someone else. A lesser actor might have been afraid of that shift of focus. Way to go, Nicolas. That's a real sign of maturity as an actor.

So did I buy into De Palma's bag of tricks? Yup, 100%. It's nice to see a movie that isn't afraid of the old razzle-dazzle. I do appreciate subtlety and complex ideas- that's why I'm a voracious reader. I really don't think I'd enjoy De Palma directing an adaptation of a Jane Austen novel or REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST. The Merchant- Ivory people do that sort of thing so nicely. But it was nice to sit back for an hour and a half and let a master showman use illusion to fool us and let our eyes fool our brains.

On a five scale, Pops gives it four slot machines.

A Brian De Palma film about a shady cop finds himself in the middle of an assassination conspiracy

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 6 November 2023]

Snake Eyes (1998) has echoes of the technical wizardry and complex plotting of other Palma films. It starts with an important boxing match in an Atlantic City casino. We are following Ricky Santoro (Nicolas Cage), a flamboyant and corrupt Atlantic City policeman who reveals in the fact that he sees every angle. Ricky has a dream: become so well connected that he can become mayor. In lieu of that, he'll settle for keeping his comfortable lifestyle. On the night of the heavyweight boxing championship, Rick becomes mixed up in a murder, whose security was in charge of his best friend and old pal, Navy Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinese). The latter is keeping an eye on Secretary of Defence Kirkland, who has a ringside seat courtesy of arena owner and munitions tycoon Gilbert Powell (John Heard). Becoming the investigating officer in the case, Rick soon uncovers a conspiracy to kill the Secretary of Defence (Fabiani) and involved a mysterious woman in white (Carla Gugino). The conspiracy was shocking, but not half as shocking as the identity of its mastermind !. Believe Everything Except Your Eyes !. Watch Closely. Now you see it. Now you don't. He's got 14,000 eyewitnesses and no one saw a thing. Seeing is Deceiving !.

Interesting and fast-paced suspense/thriller, recognisably from the blood-spattered hands of expert cinéaste Brian De Palma. De Palma's coldly executed techno-thriller open with a signature sequence: a continuous Steadicam shot begins out of Atlantic City sports arena, then snakes its way along corridors, up stars and down and elevator, to reveal the packed crowd awaiting the start of a heavyweight boxing match. This haunting thriller flick is plenty of mystery, intrigue, plot twists and suspenseful. Developing throughout a complex police procedure in which Santoro/Nicolas Cage takes charge of the investigation, as he immediately seals the crowd inside the arena and using TV and surveillance camera playback, scans the screens for clues as to the killer's identity. As Santoro interviews key witnesses , the film turns into ¨Rashomon¨ with action replays, as we see flashbacks from multiple points of view. The mechanics of suspense are worked quite well by the filmmaker and tension developing quite adequately, but De Palma has made a habit of dwelling on their more strange side-shoots. Edgy intrigue and powerful kinetic energy are generated by the surprising revelations and razor-sharp editing, while the truth behind its convoluted conspiracy has a really serious emotional and political undertow. A highly attractive film displaying a great cast and catching musical score by Ryuichi Sakamoto who along with Pino Donaggio are De Palma's favorite composers, in Bernard Herrmann style and imitating former hits. There is much for De Palma buffs to savour in this thrilling and atmospheric handling of a complex story with deliberately old-fashioned treatment and filled with twists and turns.

This elegantly dreamy 'Snake Eyes' is as rich and rare as anything De Palma's made for a while. The cinéphile Brian De Palma is a genre unto himself these days, including his own trademarks and a plot twist which, as the writer/filmmaker admits, will alienate half the audience. The movie introduces us to Hitchcock style and the visuals are often impressive. Adding special characteristics techniques as ominous camera movements and split screen. The result is provocative, surprising, outrageous and fun. Stars Nicolas Cage who makes a stubborn, poised, foul-mouthed, confident hero. And Gary Sinese is pretty good as a miltitary officer who gets involved in twisted problems. They're well accompanied by a good cast giving greater or lesser interpretations, such as: John Heard, Carla Gugino, Stan Shaw, Kevin Dunn, Michael Rispoli, Joel Fabiani, Luis Guzmán, David Anthony Higgins, Mike Starr, MarK Camacho, Tamara Tunie, among others.

It contains colorful and glamorous cinematography by cameraman Stephen H. Burum, as well as intriguing and thrilling musical score by composer Ryuichi Sakamoto. Displaying a professional and graphically mysterious direction from cinéphile Brian De Palma. This is yet another Hitchcock tribute and the reason for the chief amusement turning out to be inquire what scenes taken from Master of suspense. That's why takes parts especially from Hitchcock. The flick was well directed Brian De Palma in his usual style, but it turns out to be inferior to the other similar suspense films that he directed. This ¨Snake eyes¨(1998) ¨along with ¨Sisters¨, Obsession, ¨Body Double¨, ¨Dressed to Kill¨, ¨Blow out¨ , ¨Femme Fatale¨ most of them resulting outwardly odes to Hitchcock with the accent on the killing, but on many occasions are really decent. Rating : 7/10. Notable thriller, it gets some riveting basic ideas and fascinating images .

Pulpy Fun Full of Cage

[TwistedContent · 6/10 · 9 January 2021]

Whether you are a fan of Cage, De Palma, Sinise or pulpy vintage thrillers, "Snake Eyes" has some goodies to offer. The guys are having all kinds of good fun, going about movie's biggest flaw, a plot that wants to be grounded, suspenseful, gritty, but loses plausibility and momentum the deeper we go. If You can turn a bit of a blind eye to that, welcome to Cage's world.

Brian De Palma has made Nicolas Cage into the admirably positive minded, flamboyant, deeply flawed hero Ricky Santoro, a hotshot police detective with the amount of energy only Nic can provide. The story takes place on one night during a boxing match taking place at Atlantic City Casino, which Ricky attends together with his friend and naval officer Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise). Little did Ricky know, a massive criminal conspiracy is about to manifest itself with the murder of an important political figure right in the middle of the fight. Ricky, naturally, decides to uncover the mystery on his own and his own way.

"Snake Eyes" start enigmatically, beautifully, with the camera spinning up a 20 minute continuous dance, making first introductions and yet unknown connections between the variety of characters we'll see later on. Straight away it's more than apparent that fans of Cage like myself are in for a treat. Overacting it may be, I don't feel privileged enough to tell given the amusing character of Ricky, but take away Nicolas from the equation and, trust me, it looks worse now. A character like Santoro fits his energetic and amusing nature. As he's flowing around and interacting with an entertaining cast of familiar faces and good performances (Carla Gugino, Luis Guzman, Stan Shaw, Kevin Dunne), solving all kinds of little, pulpy, episodic, amusing problems, the bigger, more boring conspiracy is also uncovering. When the big cat's out of the bag, which is like half-way through the film, that's where "Snake Eyes" become slower, less exciting and a lot more predictable, or in other words, disappointing. The first half is a decent pulp dime novella, and the second an uninspired chase thriller.

Multiple perceptions of a singular event, relationships between them, and the audience, is what "Snake Eyes" is mostly about, and I wonder what would've come out of it with a richer story and a less lackluster ending. De Palmas relentless visual style, paired with Cage's unique charms and the lively, saturated setting of a huge event in an arena, provides enjoyable jolts of pulpy melodrama. But when all the tricks are played, we are left with a movie too typical to ascend above others... Visually, the intro sequence is not the only impressive part, so those aspects endure, despite some other minor technical flaws (or bad ideas), like almost cartoon-like swooshing sounds during the boxing scenes.

"Snake Eyes" is not a great movie, but I do have a good amount of appreciation for it, particularly Palma's direction and, you know, Cage for the win! As a mystery/thriller of the 90's, it should please the seekers of such flicks. As for Cage fans, assemble, it will please. My rating: 6/10.

Nicely assembled thriller.

[Samiam3 · 7/10 · 17 July 2010]

Snake Eyes is not very original as a premise, yet the material feels engaging and fresh as it unfolds on the screen. It is also well shot, well edited, and while the story is kind of silly, it never gets too convoluted and it says linear and focused. It's not a great movie, but as it stands, it makes a pretty fun thriller.

It is fight night in Altantic City, and the Secretary of Defence is attending. Unfortunately for him (and the nation I supposed) he is gunned down in the middle of the match. Panic erupts, and the police lock down the arena, leaving fourteen thousand possible suspects and/or eye witnesses inside. It is up to detective Rick Santoro to gets some answers.

If I am gonna make any complains about the film, it would be the following two. Nicholas Cage (as usual) over-acts BIG TIME!!! I MEAN HE REALLY OVER DOES HIS PERFORMANCE!!!!!!! WHAT THE HECK??!!! ............excuse me. I also find the Climactic finale a bit over directed. Any who knows movies, knows that Brian de Palma likes to stage his adrenaline like an opera, with bold assertive scoring, and slow motion, plus an emphasis on physical acting. Sometimes it feels right, sometimes not. One thing he always gets right though, is his integration of a long sweeping shot. Snake Eyes begins with one, and it takes up most of the first scene in fact, that's pretty good.

Snake Eyes despite its flaws is crafted skillfully enough to sustain a viewer for a hundred minutes. It is not a film that needs to be seen but it is a good one to watch if you catch it on the box one night.

Snake Eyes

[marmar-69780 · 7/10 · 30 September 2020]

Snake Eyes isnt my favourite Cage film from 90s but it is still a fun film to see and it has good acting duo in it.Cage was again very solid here and even if his character here is more normal compared to rest of his resime,he still give a very good act and character story progress,Sinise was also good here and he showed that he is very talented actor that should be in a far more movies then he actually is,expecely this days.Story wasnt nothing new and it didnt felt really fresh but it surved its purpose and it give me a solid time in front of screen

A feast of visuals, but a famine of suspense.

[Talz · 5/10 · 8 August 1998]

Director Brian DePalma has always been excellent at letting the visual image speak for itself (like Hitchcock, with whom he is often compared). In "Snake Eyes", the juxtaposed and multi-angled images are captivating for a while, until you realize how unsuspenseful the story quickly becomes. Once all the key players and plot elements are revealed, the film seems to have nowhere to go and resorts to those hokey flashback devices where we see the events play out differently via each character's recollection. Cage and Sinise do the best they can with the material, but they lack real motivation, mirroring the film's lack of direction. This particularly hurts Sinise's characterization which starts out solid, then is set adrift mid-way through the film, and winds up completely contrived by the end. Overall a disappointment, but maybe not a bad rental if you are a Nicholas Cage fan.

De Palma masterpiece that doesn't get enough appreciation

[UniqueParticle · 10/10 · 5 June 2021]

One of the most captivating movies I've seen which is strange that I've seen before a few times and forgot a lot of it. Impressive how it was shot some parts feel so authentic that weren't practiced first, seems so genuine! I can't believe there's more people that bashed Snake Eyes then not. Nicolas Cages wild energy is exceptional he's unlike most people, I love that! Amazing how Carla Gugino is sexy and how she's part of the master plan.

"Well, at least I got to be on TV"

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 29 May 2006]

(2020 review) It's a good thing I waited about, oh (checks watch) 22 years to rewatch Snake Eyes - since I saw it as an adolescent opening weekend - as I have a (somewhat) different perspective on the film. It helps that at the time I only knew Brian De Palma from the only other work Id seen from him, Mission: Impossible, and at the time this felt like a pretty natural progression from that blockbuster: both are about shadowy government conspiracies that can fly over the head of someone who is too young to know much better about logic or how things work in the grownup world, and can just appreciate the suspense and A-list actors doing what they do with these roles.

Now, I've seen Blow Out, and indeed practically all of the rest of the director's catalog, not to mention a whole shitload more of Cage, and it's certainly a film by that director as well... Just not quite on that level. Then again, how could it be? That story of a sound man for low budget movies stumbling on a conspiracy via the power of cinematic grammar and the bond that forms and (spoiler) is broken by the end between Travolta and Nancy Allen was astonishing for its marriage of technical craft and emotional resonance, and as an 80s movie that spoke to the disillusionment of the previous two decades. Snake Eyes is taking a cue from that as far as "OmG our government has some really dastardly people out for power grabs with... Defense contracts and missile systems" and so forth, which, fine, but it doesn't seem like the story has that much complexity past it being an Intricate Conspiracy Plot for the sake of De Palma getting to do his thing as a master stylist.

This sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm largely not, insofar as overall enjoyment goes. I liked this more than when I was a more thickheaded young teen, and seeing this filmmaker get to do what he wants on a fairly large canvas, not to mention understanding how much he's not just soaked in Hitchcock Bleach but so many of the concepts and visual cues and motifs of film noir (boxing match gone awry, women in double crossing roles or just not what they seem, double crossing in general, corruption abounding including with our protagonist Atlantic City detective, storytelling from various points of view with multiple narrators), I got a kick out of seeing how he finds a way to filter all these ideas through his own visual language and framework.

So as far as the simple thrill of a superb director pulling off things like that opening (almost) unbroken tracking shot, that one shot panning over the hotel rooms (which holy jellyfish Spielberg totally stole for a similar moment in Minority Report), to the split screen and the POV shots we get when being told the stories of what went down, from fighter to red-headed red-herring (ho ho), it's fun stuff. Where it falters a bit is the emotional resonance part, where it needs to get us to believe that there's this backstory and friendship between Cage and Sinise (Cage and Gugino is different as it's a lot more brief so there doesn't need to be as much there except for what's required suspense-wise).

I didn't buy that they were somehow at some level that the eventual betrayal was so shattering. Maybe, as solid as he is, Sinise is slightly miscast (though probably better than... Will Smith who was considered, too young I think) - I knew something was up with him from the start, even as a dumb young moviegoer in 98, because he seems shady from the jump. Maybe with a slightly nicer-looking guy, like Bill Paxton or someone like that, it could have been a stronger turn when it's revealed how rotten he is. Or, again, I just didn't see how his plan to assassinate a defense secretary needed to even uh... Be, so a main part of the plot doesn't hold water either.

And yet, I still recommend Snake Eyes because it's a thriller that takes chances with how to convey us details and story through how everything is presented (the video surveillance is another key filmmaker touch and one that fits right at home here), and because Cage is having a great time playing an openly sleazy but not BAD guy who realizes how deep he's into some shit, at a time when he was in Full Movie Star mode as a leading man. Last but not least, Carla Gugino, if you'll permit me a moment... Ahhh, what a sexy and very good actor here.

Unlikable main character and all-too-obvious bad guy

[duce122 · 5/10 · 24 March 2003]

Snake Eyes (1998) D: Brian De Palma. Nicolas Cage, Gary Sinise, John Heard, Carla Gugino, Stan Shaw, Kevin Dunn, Michael Rispoli, Luis Guzman. Acceptable action film places Cage as a loud-mouthed, hot shot police officer who, along with 14,000 screaming fans, witnesses the murder of the U.S. secretary of defense while attending a boxing match. Of course, there is a conspiracy which he uncovers in 98 minutes. First film I have ever seen where I knew who the bad guy was just by viewing the opening credits. This `twist' is revealed halfway through the film, so by the end, it's hard to imagine why the audience would even care. In addition, Cage plays one of the most unlikable main characters in recent memory. On the plus side, the Hitchcock-esque unbroken opening shot is a great touch. Unfortunately the rest of the film is drab. RATING: 5 out of 10. Rated R for violence and profanity.

The Eye That Lies

[tedg · 14 November 2000]

This is a wonderful experience. Never mind that the acting is poor and the story weak --that was never the point. This film was made because DePalma knows how to make his camera dance and wanted to make a film based on that notion.

A central question in most art concerns the role of the viewer. This dominated easel painting, then was the center of evolution of the novel and now sits at the core of thought about film. Is the viewer an omniscient God, or can the viewer be fooled like a person? Is the viewer a passive observer, or does she `walk' with the participants as an invisible character? So many clever questions.

DePalma thinks the camera is a whole new thing, The camera is a type of character, part narrator, part actor, part god. It can lie, be fooled, search curiously, document, play jokes. So this is a film about the camera's eyes. `Snake' both because the camera can snake around following Cage, going places that Cage cannot, but also `snake' because the camera sees with forked tongue.

So we have one seemingly continuous shot of the key scene, which is played first from Cage's perspective, then the fighter's, the Navy guy, the Girl, then the cop again, and finally the `flying eye.' Along the way, every eye trick DePalma can think of is woven in:

--The girl's glasses are crushed so she sees less than the audience

--The whole mess is about what a satellite sees

--The casino has 1000 cameras which our own eyes coopt

--The thing is framed by the TV eye

--God-like, we scan over several hotel rooms while Cage and Sinese are stuck in the hallway maze

--Splitscreen simultaneity

--The whole thing is in real time, as if you were living in the action

This is masterfully intellectual. See it. Forget the story.

A joy for the De Palma fans, for most others it's just another confusing thriller.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 23 September 2007]

Just like with "Femme Fatale" was the case, the opening sequences of this movie is more legendary than the actual movie itself. The opening sequences of this movie lasts for about 13 minutes. It seems like its one big long take but there are some hidden cuts in it. Most people that are really into movies will notice some of the cuts. De Palma uses some good editing tricks and crafty cinematography. It also makes the opening the highlight of the movie. Of course you can wonder if its really wise and good for a movie to have its best moment in the beginning. Everything that comes after it just doesn't match up to it and it might very well be the reason why this movie disappointed many people.

I really like it how the same events are told throughout the movie from different viewpoints. It sheds now light on the truth and helps to unveil the story and plot. That's some great film-making! It also makes the movie a very original one in its sort.

Yes, the movie gets at points hard to follow, mainly because it isn't always credible what's happening on the screen. Nevertheless, I remember the first time I saw the movie that the twists in it surprised me and the story was a great mysterious one.

Nicolas Cage and Gary Sinise are really strong actors in this movie. It takes some skill to handle all those long scene's without messing up and staying consistent. Especially Gary Sinise is great but I think that Nicolas Cage is also under-appreciated in his role. You are supposed to sort of dislike him, I mean he really isn't a clean cop, and that's what I like about the character and Cage's his performance.

I also enjoyed the musical score by Ryuichi Sakamoto. It's totally overblown and out of proportion but it suits the movie and its style really well. Same of course goes for the cinematography.

It's basically a very stylish and originally made movie, like you would expect from Brian De Palma. It's obviously not his most expensive movie because most of the movie is set at one location and it also isn't the longest movie around. It makes this an enjoyable 'small' De Palma movie that's also perfectly watchable for the general public. The movie is made in the sort of style they also used to make '40's movies in. I especially like the use of shadows in this movie. De Palma is, as far is I know of, the only director who can successfully implement '40's movie-making style into modern film-making. It's a good looking movie with a style that captures you and sort of makes you forgive the inconsistencies and flaws in the story. However if you also look beyond this style you'll notice that the story and its thriller elements are all quite standards and nothing really really. Just the way it all is dressed is new! So yes, it's a case of style over substance, like often is the case with De Palma movies. But as a fan I really aren't complaining about this!

Most recommendable to the De Palma fans but other people should also be able to appreciate the style and craftsmanship of this movie.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

oh my. what happened?

[xmute · 6/10 · 25 February 1999]

witness 30 minutes of film brilliance and then sit back as this film falls completely apart. it's such a shame too, as depalma has pieced together a gob-smacking bit of eye-candy with no heart. a sad waste of cage's (and depalma's) wealth of talent.

De Palma is a genius with the camera!!!

[swaddels · 7/10 · 27 December 2002]

I saw this film for the first time the other day, and I was blown away! Not only is the story mysterious and compelling, but the techniques De Palma uses are amazing!

The first 12 and a half minutes is one big shot! That's incredible! And the split-screen sequence is very welcome, simply because the split-screen isn't used enough any more. As my brother, who watched the film with me, said, "The split-screen hasn't been used effectively since Wood-Stock!" I Agree with him. What a great film.

That being said, it isn't De Palma's best. That would probably be The Untouchables.

Visually striking, content lacking

[Rumples · 6/10 · 12 April 1999]

No question this was a clever idea and beautifully filmed. The opening sequence was an impressive piece of seamless film and, with a quality leading cast appeared to hold such great promise. But then it all fell in a heap. Why? Because nothing was developed in a clever or convincing fashion. Cage couldn't be related too as he bounced between good cop/bad cop and was constantly hyperactive. Sinise was somewhat ominous in his role but wasn't allowed to develop anything close to a sympathetic stance. And since nothing was made of the good guy turning bad or the bad guy struggling for redemption, there was essentially no character development. Added to this, there was no suspense. It was just too easy to work out. And there was never any doubt about the safety of the girl, even if you cared about her - which you didn't. In the end, it looked like they just wanted to wrap this film up and just as well. Very disappointing movie. Not because it was bad, but because it had the potential to be very good and wasn't. My vote 6/10 and that was mainly for the cinematography.

Starts out showing potential, turns out to suck.

[mattdm · 2/10 · 20 February 1999]

The beginning is really cool, and there looks to be a great, convoluted conspiracy plot developing. But there isn't -- your first guess might not be right, but your second one will be, and there's no surprises from there. The ending is particularly lame, with a series of coincidences standing in for an actual plot.

Roll the Dice

[aciessi · 7/10 · 16 May 2017]

Not all De Palma films are beloved. Snake Eyes is considered one of his weakest. The story is generic and the ending is a complete letdown. But the cinematography is so on point, it's really hard to dislike this film. It's a lot of fun, in fact. Nicholas Cage doesn't get better. Gary Sinise is superb. The opening shot is a steady cam, long take, reminiscent of the Copa scene in Goodfellas and the opening to Boogie Nights. It gets you right into Ricky's world, and immediately, you are hooked. De Palma knows how to get you invested in his characters. Overall, it's very surprising to me how much of a bad rep Snake Eyes has.

THESE "EYES" ARE BLIND!

[Collins · 2/10 · 1 March 1999]

Brian DePalma can make some really great films like "Mission: Impossible" but he can also make some really awful disappointments like "Raising Cain" and this weak, little movie called "Snakes Eyes."

The first half of the film is awesomely written and directed, but, as soon as the cat is out of the bag (and that comes sooner than you think), the movie fizzles into a shockingly disappointing failure of a film. First off, the "real" bad guy is so easy to spot it's laughable. Second off, does that girl in the film ever really DO anything aside from standing around and looking like a deer caught in a set of headlights for 90-plus minutes?!! I never even got a name, but, then again, maybe she didn't have one. Really, who cares?! (In fact, DePalma might have actually thought the concept of a nameless "heroine" was a plus.)

What it boils down to is this director's overpowering urge to BE Alfred Hitchcock. Problem is, Hitchcock invented the style he used. DePalma's different in that all he does is use the Master's fifty year old methods (split-screens, real-time photography, passing through walls, etc.) that, by this point, have been imitated so many times that they don't really even register an impact on the audience anymore!

Oh, well. There's always that "Mission: Impossible 2" coming up, right?

I Like This.....Which Surprises Me

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 20 November 2006]

Most people didn't like this movie, from what I have heard and read over the years. Some of my friends who saw it didn't like it either. For some reason, I did, and that was despite a few things I normally don't put up with (too much usages of the Lord's name in vain and the usual anti-military agenda.)

However, I found this a very fast-moving, involving story with Nicholas Cage playing an extremely interesting person: "Rick Santoro," a guy who acts like a complete crazy man at the beginning but slowly gets it together as the film goes on. Gary Sinise plays his normal corrupt role (this was before his CSI: New York days) and Carla Gugino was very easy on my eyes.

Brian DePalma directed this, so you know it's going to be stylishly shot, too. This looks really, really good on the recently-released Blu-Ray.

All the characters are interesting, actually. One complaint I agree with: the ending was a bit weak and detracts from the story. It's a rough film but edgy and interesting. Don't be discouraged reading a lot of negative reviews about this. It's good entertainment.

Initially promising but ultimately disappointing thriller

[1001 · 5/10 · 14 October 1998]

Snake Eyes opens with a brilliant 12-minute tracking shot, ostensively one long unedited scene. In this sequence we learn everything we need to know about our hero, played by Nicolas Cage. He is a highly energetic and corrupt Atlantic City cop - "it's a sewer, but it's my sewer." It's fight night, and there are a number of dignitaries in the crowd. Included in this select group is the Minister of Defense, guarded by a good friend of Nic's, played by Gary Sinese.

It isn't long before the Minister of Defense is dead, and Nic's cover-up machine kicks in. But who is really guilty here? Who's the blonde, and who's the redhead? Will our hero ultimately stay in character, or will his conscience win over?

Brian De Palma should do well by this material. He's a veteran of thrillers with a number of good ones under his belt (see Blow Out, Body Double, Carrie). But this movie loses steam about halfway through. A cliched and perfectly predictable plot sets in, the Nicolas Cage character loses his energy, and the finale in the rain makes no sense. To add insult to injury, the movie tacks on a half-hearted happy ending. Rent the aformentioned movies instead.

Probably Not the Worst Thing in De Palma's Career

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 19 November 2013]

A shady police detective (Nicolas Cage) finds himself in the middle of a murder conspiracy at an important boxing match in an Atlantic City casino.

Unfortunately, the DVD I watched had the picture stretched out funny. The film was widescreen, but two wide and not tall enough. I suppose I could have fixed that by adjusting my TV settings, but I was generally disappointed in the presentation. I will not hold that against the film, though -- just saying it needs a better release.

Some of the De Palma traits are here: there is a bit of surveillance (not quite his regular voyeurism theme, but not far removed) and a little bit of split screen. These aspects really mark it as his work even if nothing else does.

Having Nicolas Cage as the lead was a gamble. He can be amazing or dreadful, and you never know what you are going to get. Here he runs the whole range -- in some scenes he is pretty good and in others pretty awful. The overall strength or weakness of the film seems to fall on Cage, and this may be why it falters at times.

Deserves a reboot

[safenoe · 6/10 · 23 December 2021]

I remember the internet buzz to Snake Eyes when the internet was young in the 90s. I was looking forward to Snake Eyes so much, but somehow the tension didn't quite deliver. Still, it's an intruiging storyline for sure, and I think Netflix series or something like that would breathe life into the movie that could have been a contender.

Only Carla Gugino is worth seeing in this film

[Agent10 · 6/10 · 9 November 2004]

There was really only one good thing that spawned from this movie other than a total waste of talent and cinematography: Carla Gugino. She was an unknown to me before this movie, and thanks to her ravishing appearance and stature, I will always find this film somewhat worthy of spending an early afternoon watching. The problem with this film wasn't just in its bad dialogue and story, but it just have enough depth to it. I mean, the alternate chronology is pretty cool and the opening sequence is well made, but the overall film just cracked at the seems. The ending brought it all down, and when it was all said and done, a crappy Meredith Brooks song destroyed any semblance of a film. And beyond that, there is very little to say.

Interesting opening scene. standard fare afterwards.

[rmarkd · 6/10 · 26 December 2020]

Nicholas Cage stars as a mildly corrupt cop Rick Santoro at a fight where one of the attendees is the Secretary of Defense. His DOD guard is commanded by Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise). Kevin and Rick happen to be best friends. SoD gets shot and Rick and Kevin have to figure out who did it, and why. Carla Gugino is a mystery woman saying something to the SoD at the time of the shooting and is somehow involved but Rick and Kevin aren't sure how.

Outside of the frenzied and amazing 13 minute continuous opening shot that's probably worth rewatching, the rest of the movie is standard thriller fare. Good guys aren't so good, bad guys aren't so bad, twists twist as expected. Cage is over the top, which works, but not always. The other actors are just there, though I did like Sinise in his role.

There really wasn't anything I disliked about the movie, but there wasn't much I liked either. 6/10 for me.

Expectations dashed

[chengiz · 2/10 · 17 October 1998]

The movie begins extremely well. The first half an hour or so - Nicholas Cage's profile, the drama leading to the actual shooting, the beginning of the melee in the stadium, is taut and gripping - really superbly done. But then, the whole drama fades into nothingness. I am not a great fan of De Palma (the hell they raise about untouchables -- its just another action movie I thought) .. but this was really the pits.

Some of the extremely lousy things in the movie : we know whodunit before we even begin to suspect anybody, thou's of spectators go from a mad rush after the shooting to enjoying themselves in a matter of minutes, the blonde wig's angle SUCKS, the eye-camera angle was stupid, the Cage-tracking scene was awful (why did they need the tracking device ?!), the final car-skid was childish, the ending was weird at best. All in all, one avoidable movie.

Great Cage and Sinise duo

[ivanmessimilos · 7/10 · 24 May 2020]

Snake Eyes is a 1998 film directed by Brian de Palme who is a great director for me, even for my taste and slightly underestimated given the top accomplishments he has made, but so far so much about him. The main roles belong to Nicolas Cage and Gary Sinise, and there are also Carla Gugino and John Heard, and you will probably pick up another familiar face.

Cage plays a corrupt cop who is with his best friend (Sinise), a decorated navy commander in a crowded arena as he is about to watch a boxing match for the championship title. However, the assassination of the Minister of Defense, who is also in the audience, soon took place, and then the investigation began.

Let's start with the best things, the very beginning of this film is one of the best movie openings ever. Yes, I wrote EVER. We have an uninterrupted shot of some twenty (20!) Minutes where the camera stands on our Nicolas almost all the time and during that time we learn a lot about his character and along the way we get to know the supporting characters he meets. Later I read somewhere that it was not one and the same shot but that it was shot from maybe 3-4 times, but we still have a good ten, maybe fifteen minutes of pure continuous shooting, which is really impressive and looks wonderful. The main acting duo is really great in their roles, considering the year this film was released I have to point out that both actors were in their prime then, both were making the best films then, and they also achieved their best roles in their entire career. Just look at what they both recorded then over a period of 5-6 years and you will agree with me. Maybe that's why this film didn't come to the fore and found its place in the sun. Of course at times you may notice Cage acting out a caricature of himself, but that's an advantage for me, by no means a disadvantage. 😄

The brilliant opening is followed by a very good second third, and the quality starts to decline in the last third of the film, literally right after the unexpected twist, and the very end of the film is somehow accelerated and fidgety, not at the level of the first half of the film. This certainly lowered the quality of the film for the entire rating, if not the rating and a half.

To sum up in the final word: a great start, great starring roles, a great thriller in the middle and revealing what exactly happened, masterful camera work, a little worse ending of the film, but you'll forgive him for what he has to offer in his 90s minute.