Cool News
SNAKE EYES review
Saw SNAKE EYES tonight.... don't know how to feel about it though. I have this cold clammy feeling like ya get when somebody joyfully comes up and tells you someone is dead, and you don't know who they are talking about or why they told you, but you can tell you're supposed to be happy about it, but you ain't. SNAKE EYES left me in this state. Here's the set up as usual.
Pulled a real early morninger, doing some debugging chores, fixing some stuff, answering tech questions and updating the site, so when I went to bed at 10am this morning, I was not real sure when I would wake up. So when Dad got me off my ass at 3:30pm, I found myself in a struggle to return calls, read emails and go grab some supper before attempting to see SNAKE EYES.
In other words today was short, rushed and not alot was accomplished. One of them days where ya just don't see a progressive arc to your life. But hey, whatever, there was a DePalma flick showing and I had to get in. Ya see I didn't have tickets, so I had to work the line like the fat ticket whore that I was. There's a fine art to this practice, you look for odd numbers. People in groups of 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. This means they have a spare tire that you can ride in on. I was searching for Daddio too. Finally I found a geek with a heart of celluloid, he was wearing an X-Files shirt (which meant conversing wouldn't be a problem) and sure enough he let me pick up his spare. He recognized me as being a movie poster and collectible seller, while the group ahead of him recognized me from one of those TV shows I did. They fired off questions and I answered, but I couldn't wait to geek out with the X-Files T-Shirt Wearing dude. We began talking DePalma. His fave being BLOW OUT, mine being PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE. Later two other geeks cried out SCARFACE, and another said THE UNTOUCHABLES. We all agreed the adolescent in us worshipped the hot body double for Angie Dickinson in that kickass shower scene in DRESSED TO KILL, and the oh so hot masturbatory dance from BODY DOUBLE. I even found a defender of RAISING CAIN, an excretable log of regurgitated celluloid. The audience had it's fair share of DePalma fans, so we should have a good audience. Copernicus shows up to scam a ticket, and like the excellent observer that he is, he managed to score a whole pass for him and Father Geek. Good enough.
Next we watched as the special V.I.P. seated people got in early, evil people, then we filed in. We were sitting for about 10 minutes when the manager and the rep for the studio came out to announce that due to bad weather, the print of the film was delayed in it's flight from Dallas to Austin, and that if we waited around for another 45 minutes, we 'may' see the film. Otherwise we could go out of the theater, getting a pass with a special mark, allowing us to see the film tomorrow night. Fuck that, we're here.
So we spent another 45 minutes talking about DePalma, Carpenter, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Coppola, Malick, etc. A frenzy of filmic references ensued until finally the lights dimmed and SNAKE EYES began.
Well, I love Brian DePalma, and I love Nicholas Cage, but this movie has left me in a strange fucked up in-between state. With a complete uncertainty of how I feel about this. Ultimately it's like this...
The movie has some wonderful technical things. The opening tracking shot, the overhead hotel room to hotel room shot, and when looking at this I get a feeling that DePalma was right smack dab in a 'craftsman' state of mind. However, I think there are some fundamentaly screwed up things with this one.
I have always hated it when we knew there was a bad guy, but we didn't know who, but the filmmaker decides to reveal that to us too early. Thereby stealing the mystery. Taking away the suspense. I am well aware of the Hitchcock rule, the one about showing two people eating at a picnic table, while we the audience sees the bomb ticking away beneath the table. Each second becomes more and more unbearable, till finally with 7 seconds the lady chips her tooth on a nut, leaves the table and as she gets 20 feet away the bomb goes off killing her boyfriend, spouse, son, whatever.
But ya know what, the bad guy in this flick is not a ticking bomb, he's more like a llama that goes nuts for a bit. He doesn't scare me. And as for the people sitting at the table, well I don't really care about them either. Everything is so morally ambiguous here, that I don't really care about anyone besides this one babe. Cage is so over the top and bigger than life that I can't believe how screwed up he is.
Now at the same time there are some issues dealt with here that I just love dealing with. Let's talk about betrayl. I just love betrayl. I'm not talking about the sort of betrayl like ya coming home and finding your wife bonking your big brother, I'm talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about dealing with the betrayl of your personal heroes, the ones you look up to. Often times this is the case with kids from divorced families, when they feel their parents have let them down, betrayed that idyllic life that they dreamed of. Or perhaps you could look at this whole thing as a parable for the presidency. A position that has always meant holding above what we as individuals are. The general concept of the presidency and whomever sits in that seat is to be better than we the common people. To be better, to raise above the 'common' or 'baser' natures of man, and to truly be the pinnacle of humanity. Well in the last 26 years that's all gone to hell. Now we look upon the people that sit in the 'highest office in the land' as flawed humans. With the same desires, fetishes, greed and flaws we all have. And if our heroes are no better than we, then what are we to do? In this film the answer comes. That's what Nick Cage has to deal with.
When all the heroes are gone, when the world has turned dark, and you realize that they who the world idolizes are baser than you, what do you become. Do you stay the same, or do you become better. When I discovered my mother was an alcoholic, I became better, I refused to become who she became. We see faults all about us, but when we realize these faults exist, what do we do. I love these sorts of things in films. Items of morality that we must face. Because ultimately a lot of what I believe is right and wrong I took from film. And it still challenges me.
That's why this film upsets me so. It has things I love, and things I hate. And in all the film leaves me empty and icky, with only my over-analyzation to save me. One thing is sure, DePalma is a great 'craftsman' but he needs to make sure that style serves the story, not the other way around. The story is paramount, and the film needs to be anchored a bit. The epilogue is terrible, some of Nick Cage's stuff is terrible, and please oh please make your bad guy not so bad guy looking. This is the sort of thing where I would have loved to have seen a regular hero type (Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford) play the 'bad guy' cause we really need to be caught completely unawares. Oh well....
In other words today was short, rushed and not alot was accomplished. One of them days where ya just don't see a progressive arc to your life. But hey, whatever, there was a DePalma flick showing and I had to get in. Ya see I didn't have tickets, so I had to work the line like the fat ticket whore that I was. There's a fine art to this practice, you look for odd numbers. People in groups of 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. This means they have a spare tire that you can ride in on. I was searching for Daddio too. Finally I found a geek with a heart of celluloid, he was wearing an X-Files shirt (which meant conversing wouldn't be a problem) and sure enough he let me pick up his spare. He recognized me as being a movie poster and collectible seller, while the group ahead of him recognized me from one of those TV shows I did. They fired off questions and I answered, but I couldn't wait to geek out with the X-Files T-Shirt Wearing dude. We began talking DePalma. His fave being BLOW OUT, mine being PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE. Later two other geeks cried out SCARFACE, and another said THE UNTOUCHABLES. We all agreed the adolescent in us worshipped the hot body double for Angie Dickinson in that kickass shower scene in DRESSED TO KILL, and the oh so hot masturbatory dance from BODY DOUBLE. I even found a defender of RAISING CAIN, an excretable log of regurgitated celluloid. The audience had it's fair share of DePalma fans, so we should have a good audience. Copernicus shows up to scam a ticket, and like the excellent observer that he is, he managed to score a whole pass for him and Father Geek. Good enough.
Next we watched as the special V.I.P. seated people got in early, evil people, then we filed in. We were sitting for about 10 minutes when the manager and the rep for the studio came out to announce that due to bad weather, the print of the film was delayed in it's flight from Dallas to Austin, and that if we waited around for another 45 minutes, we 'may' see the film. Otherwise we could go out of the theater, getting a pass with a special mark, allowing us to see the film tomorrow night. Fuck that, we're here.
So we spent another 45 minutes talking about DePalma, Carpenter, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Coppola, Malick, etc. A frenzy of filmic references ensued until finally the lights dimmed and SNAKE EYES began.
Well, I love Brian DePalma, and I love Nicholas Cage, but this movie has left me in a strange fucked up in-between state. With a complete uncertainty of how I feel about this. Ultimately it's like this...
The movie has some wonderful technical things. The opening tracking shot, the overhead hotel room to hotel room shot, and when looking at this I get a feeling that DePalma was right smack dab in a 'craftsman' state of mind. However, I think there are some fundamentaly screwed up things with this one.
I have always hated it when we knew there was a bad guy, but we didn't know who, but the filmmaker decides to reveal that to us too early. Thereby stealing the mystery. Taking away the suspense. I am well aware of the Hitchcock rule, the one about showing two people eating at a picnic table, while we the audience sees the bomb ticking away beneath the table. Each second becomes more and more unbearable, till finally with 7 seconds the lady chips her tooth on a nut, leaves the table and as she gets 20 feet away the bomb goes off killing her boyfriend, spouse, son, whatever.
But ya know what, the bad guy in this flick is not a ticking bomb, he's more like a llama that goes nuts for a bit. He doesn't scare me. And as for the people sitting at the table, well I don't really care about them either. Everything is so morally ambiguous here, that I don't really care about anyone besides this one babe. Cage is so over the top and bigger than life that I can't believe how screwed up he is.
Now at the same time there are some issues dealt with here that I just love dealing with. Let's talk about betrayl. I just love betrayl. I'm not talking about the sort of betrayl like ya coming home and finding your wife bonking your big brother, I'm talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about dealing with the betrayl of your personal heroes, the ones you look up to. Often times this is the case with kids from divorced families, when they feel their parents have let them down, betrayed that idyllic life that they dreamed of. Or perhaps you could look at this whole thing as a parable for the presidency. A position that has always meant holding above what we as individuals are. The general concept of the presidency and whomever sits in that seat is to be better than we the common people. To be better, to raise above the 'common' or 'baser' natures of man, and to truly be the pinnacle of humanity. Well in the last 26 years that's all gone to hell. Now we look upon the people that sit in the 'highest office in the land' as flawed humans. With the same desires, fetishes, greed and flaws we all have. And if our heroes are no better than we, then what are we to do? In this film the answer comes. That's what Nick Cage has to deal with.
When all the heroes are gone, when the world has turned dark, and you realize that they who the world idolizes are baser than you, what do you become. Do you stay the same, or do you become better. When I discovered my mother was an alcoholic, I became better, I refused to become who she became. We see faults all about us, but when we realize these faults exist, what do we do. I love these sorts of things in films. Items of morality that we must face. Because ultimately a lot of what I believe is right and wrong I took from film. And it still challenges me.
That's why this film upsets me so. It has things I love, and things I hate. And in all the film leaves me empty and icky, with only my over-analyzation to save me. One thing is sure, DePalma is a great 'craftsman' but he needs to make sure that style serves the story, not the other way around. The story is paramount, and the film needs to be anchored a bit. The epilogue is terrible, some of Nick Cage's stuff is terrible, and please oh please make your bad guy not so bad guy looking. This is the sort of thing where I would have loved to have seen a regular hero type (Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford) play the 'bad guy' cause we really need to be caught completely unawares. Oh well....
So we spent another 45 minutes talking about DePalma, Carpenter, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Coppola, Malick, etc. A frenzy of filmic references ensued until finally the lights dimmed and SNAKE EYES began.
Well, I love Brian DePalma, and I love Nicholas Cage, but this movie has left me in a strange fucked up in-between state. With a complete uncertainty of how I feel about this. Ultimately it's like this...
The movie has some wonderful technical things. The opening tracking shot, the overhead hotel room to hotel room shot, and when looking at this I get a feeling that DePalma was right smack dab in a 'craftsman' state of mind. However, I think there are some fundamentaly screwed up things with this one.
I have always hated it when we knew there was a bad guy, but we didn't know who, but the filmmaker decides to reveal that to us too early. Thereby stealing the mystery. Taking away the suspense. I am well aware of the Hitchcock rule, the one about showing two people eating at a picnic table, while we the audience sees the bomb ticking away beneath the table. Each second becomes more and more unbearable, till finally with 7 seconds the lady chips her tooth on a nut, leaves the table and as she gets 20 feet away the bomb goes off killing her boyfriend, spouse, son, whatever.
But ya know what, the bad guy in this flick is not a ticking bomb, he's more like a llama that goes nuts for a bit. He doesn't scare me. And as for the people sitting at the table, well I don't really care about them either. Everything is so morally ambiguous here, that I don't really care about anyone besides this one babe. Cage is so over the top and bigger than life that I can't believe how screwed up he is.
Now at the same time there are some issues dealt with here that I just love dealing with. Let's talk about betrayl. I just love betrayl. I'm not talking about the sort of betrayl like ya coming home and finding your wife bonking your big brother, I'm talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about dealing with the betrayl of your personal heroes, the ones you look up to. Often times this is the case with kids from divorced families, when they feel their parents have let them down, betrayed that idyllic life that they dreamed of. Or perhaps you could look at this whole thing as a parable for the presidency. A position that has always meant holding above what we as individuals are. The general concept of the presidency and whomever sits in that seat is to be better than we the common people. To be better, to raise above the 'common' or 'baser' natures of man, and to truly be the pinnacle of humanity. Well in the last 26 years that's all gone to hell. Now we look upon the people that sit in the 'highest office in the land' as flawed humans. With the same desires, fetishes, greed and flaws we all have. And if our heroes are no better than we, then what are we to do? In this film the answer comes. That's what Nick Cage has to deal with.
When all the heroes are gone, when the world has turned dark, and you realize that they who the world idolizes are baser than you, what do you become. Do you stay the same, or do you become better. When I discovered my mother was an alcoholic, I became better, I refused to become who she became. We see faults all about us, but when we realize these faults exist, what do we do. I love these sorts of things in films. Items of morality that we must face. Because ultimately a lot of what I believe is right and wrong I took from film. And it still challenges me.
That's why this film upsets me so. It has things I love, and things I hate. And in all the film leaves me empty and icky, with only my over-analyzation to save me. One thing is sure, DePalma is a great 'craftsman' but he needs to make sure that style serves the story, not the other way around. The story is paramount, and the film needs to be anchored a bit. The epilogue is terrible, some of Nick Cage's stuff is terrible, and please oh please make your bad guy not so bad guy looking. This is the sort of thing where I would have loved to have seen a regular hero type (Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford) play the 'bad guy' cause we really need to be caught completely unawares. Oh well....
The movie has some wonderful technical things. The opening tracking shot, the overhead hotel room to hotel room shot, and when looking at this I get a feeling that DePalma was right smack dab in a 'craftsman' state of mind. However, I think there are some fundamentaly screwed up things with this one.
I have always hated it when we knew there was a bad guy, but we didn't know who, but the filmmaker decides to reveal that to us too early. Thereby stealing the mystery. Taking away the suspense. I am well aware of the Hitchcock rule, the one about showing two people eating at a picnic table, while we the audience sees the bomb ticking away beneath the table. Each second becomes more and more unbearable, till finally with 7 seconds the lady chips her tooth on a nut, leaves the table and as she gets 20 feet away the bomb goes off killing her boyfriend, spouse, son, whatever.
But ya know what, the bad guy in this flick is not a ticking bomb, he's more like a llama that goes nuts for a bit. He doesn't scare me. And as for the people sitting at the table, well I don't really care about them either. Everything is so morally ambiguous here, that I don't really care about anyone besides this one babe. Cage is so over the top and bigger than life that I can't believe how screwed up he is.
Now at the same time there are some issues dealt with here that I just love dealing with. Let's talk about betrayl. I just love betrayl. I'm not talking about the sort of betrayl like ya coming home and finding your wife bonking your big brother, I'm talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about dealing with the betrayl of your personal heroes, the ones you look up to. Often times this is the case with kids from divorced families, when they feel their parents have let them down, betrayed that idyllic life that they dreamed of. Or perhaps you could look at this whole thing as a parable for the presidency. A position that has always meant holding above what we as individuals are. The general concept of the presidency and whomever sits in that seat is to be better than we the common people. To be better, to raise above the 'common' or 'baser' natures of man, and to truly be the pinnacle of humanity. Well in the last 26 years that's all gone to hell. Now we look upon the people that sit in the 'highest office in the land' as flawed humans. With the same desires, fetishes, greed and flaws we all have. And if our heroes are no better than we, then what are we to do? In this film the answer comes. That's what Nick Cage has to deal with.
When all the heroes are gone, when the world has turned dark, and you realize that they who the world idolizes are baser than you, what do you become. Do you stay the same, or do you become better. When I discovered my mother was an alcoholic, I became better, I refused to become who she became. We see faults all about us, but when we realize these faults exist, what do we do. I love these sorts of things in films. Items of morality that we must face. Because ultimately a lot of what I believe is right and wrong I took from film. And it still challenges me.
That's why this film upsets me so. It has things I love, and things I hate. And in all the film leaves me empty and icky, with only my over-analyzation to save me. One thing is sure, DePalma is a great 'craftsman' but he needs to make sure that style serves the story, not the other way around. The story is paramount, and the film needs to be anchored a bit. The epilogue is terrible, some of Nick Cage's stuff is terrible, and please oh please make your bad guy not so bad guy looking. This is the sort of thing where I would have loved to have seen a regular hero type (Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford) play the 'bad guy' cause we really need to be caught completely unawares. Oh well....
But ya know what, the bad guy in this flick is not a ticking bomb, he's more like a llama that goes nuts for a bit. He doesn't scare me. And as for the people sitting at the table, well I don't really care about them either. Everything is so morally ambiguous here, that I don't really care about anyone besides this one babe. Cage is so over the top and bigger than life that I can't believe how screwed up he is.
Now at the same time there are some issues dealt with here that I just love dealing with. Let's talk about betrayl. I just love betrayl. I'm not talking about the sort of betrayl like ya coming home and finding your wife bonking your big brother, I'm talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about dealing with the betrayl of your personal heroes, the ones you look up to. Often times this is the case with kids from divorced families, when they feel their parents have let them down, betrayed that idyllic life that they dreamed of. Or perhaps you could look at this whole thing as a parable for the presidency. A position that has always meant holding above what we as individuals are. The general concept of the presidency and whomever sits in that seat is to be better than we the common people. To be better, to raise above the 'common' or 'baser' natures of man, and to truly be the pinnacle of humanity. Well in the last 26 years that's all gone to hell. Now we look upon the people that sit in the 'highest office in the land' as flawed humans. With the same desires, fetishes, greed and flaws we all have. And if our heroes are no better than we, then what are we to do? In this film the answer comes. That's what Nick Cage has to deal with.
When all the heroes are gone, when the world has turned dark, and you realize that they who the world idolizes are baser than you, what do you become. Do you stay the same, or do you become better. When I discovered my mother was an alcoholic, I became better, I refused to become who she became. We see faults all about us, but when we realize these faults exist, what do we do. I love these sorts of things in films. Items of morality that we must face. Because ultimately a lot of what I believe is right and wrong I took from film. And it still challenges me.
That's why this film upsets me so. It has things I love, and things I hate. And in all the film leaves me empty and icky, with only my over-analyzation to save me. One thing is sure, DePalma is a great 'craftsman' but he needs to make sure that style serves the story, not the other way around. The story is paramount, and the film needs to be anchored a bit. The epilogue is terrible, some of Nick Cage's stuff is terrible, and please oh please make your bad guy not so bad guy looking. This is the sort of thing where I would have loved to have seen a regular hero type (Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford) play the 'bad guy' cause we really need to be caught completely unawares. Oh well....
When all the heroes are gone, when the world has turned dark, and you realize that they who the world idolizes are baser than you, what do you become. Do you stay the same, or do you become better. When I discovered my mother was an alcoholic, I became better, I refused to become who she became. We see faults all about us, but when we realize these faults exist, what do we do. I love these sorts of things in films. Items of morality that we must face. Because ultimately a lot of what I believe is right and wrong I took from film. And it still challenges me.
That's why this film upsets me so. It has things I love, and things I hate. And in all the film leaves me empty and icky, with only my over-analyzation to save me. One thing is sure, DePalma is a great 'craftsman' but he needs to make sure that style serves the story, not the other way around. The story is paramount, and the film needs to be anchored a bit. The epilogue is terrible, some of Nick Cage's stuff is terrible, and please oh please make your bad guy not so bad guy looking. This is the sort of thing where I would have loved to have seen a regular hero type (Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford) play the 'bad guy' cause we really need to be caught completely unawares. Oh well....
-
+ Expand All
-
This is DePalma's third movie w/ David Koepp, the writer who has a remarkable knack for fooling Hollywood people into thinking he's clever. This hack has screwed up more potentially uber-cool movies than you can shake a stick at. Somebody must stop him!!!
While he excels at writing thin, unlikeable characters, Koepp's specialty seems to be coming up w/ "clever" endings that are actually ridiculous, illogical, stupid and
contrived.
Examples:
JURASSIC PARK -- T-Rex comes from out of nowhere, for no
reason, to kill velociraptors and save heroes!
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE -- Tom Cruise
foils bad guy by wearing a MASK of him which fools the guy's WIFE!
THE SHADOW -- Turns out that villain has been building secret lair in NYC -- a SKYSCRAPER that nobody sees because he HYPNOTIZED THE WHOLE CITY INTO NOT SEEING IT!
And it goes on now, with SNAKE EYES. Just because Koepp lucked out w/ some talented people, doesn't hide the fact that HE MUST BE STOPPED!
Please, filmmakers -- don't hire Koepp, hire the guys who wrote ZORRO, anybody, just don't let this guy screw up another cool movie!!!
Rant over.
Duke Ray -
What do you mean by "epilogue?" Do you just mean the last (admittedly dumb) scene between Cage and Gugino on the pier? Or do you mean everthing that took place after the climax of the film? I really liked the tabloid TV scenes at the end of the film. Action movies never want to show the next day's consequences, or the next week's consequences. I thought those scenes were amazing because the only good thing about "Snake Eyes" was the redemption story, and that particular character wouldn't have been truly redeemed without paying the full price for the actions of a lifetime. And he did. And I've never seen that in a thriller before, and I thought it was awfully gutsy.
-
snake eyes structually flawed; badly written;poorly staged. cage
goes way over the top
synoptic sequences a poor man's
imitation of Tarentino schtick
in pulp/ depalma is a bankrupt
director; bereft of any concept
of screenplay structure.
his first act was too long in Mission Impossible, and he's done
it again in this effort.
the sad part is the ignorant exec
who greenlit this turkey, and cost the shareholders several millon in losses. stop deplama.
a has been of the highest order.
sorry to rag on this guy, but i wasted $20 bucks on this stinker -
Nick Cage is always awesome, what more can I say, Nick is the man.
-
I couldn't agree with Duke Ray more. David Koepp must be stopped! Who in the flying fuck decided this guy could write? Snake Eyes is just the icing on the cake. And DePalma? This hack has made one decent movie. One. Carrie. The others have moments, like Eyes, but overall, this man can't make a complete film. He's the luckiest director in town. Not even Nic Cage and Gary Sinise could save Snake Eyes. One of the worst endings in cinematic history. Hell, they should've just left the tidal wave thing in. That last exchange with Cage and Gugino was so obviously tacked on. It seemed like it was from another movie. Anyway, just wanted to blow off some steam. I saw it the other day and I'm still pissed off! Not as bad as the abortion called Batman & Robin, but still a waste of celluloid nonetheless. Great site, Harry. Keep up the coolness! Kip.
-
Harry, you're too kind. Just saw Snake Eyes yesterday & good Lord was I disappointed. I'm a big DePalma fan but damn was this one of the biggest steaming piles of tripe I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through. I felt like I wasted two hours of my life that could've been better spent seeing either one of the only two decent movies released this summer (Private Ryan & Out of Sight) again. Ugh. Agreed -- some cool shots; always good to watch Cage come unglued; but Sinise basically revised his "Ransom" squeaky-clean-on-surface-is-actually-evil-personified schtick. And in what universe does a major defense contractor have a side business as a Donald Trump-esque casino / hotel magnate? Not to mention when was the last time the Secretary of Defense went to see a fight? I know the American movie-going public is moronic, but my cat has daintily buried objects that bore a strong resemblance to the script of this waste of time, talent & shiny sets in her litterbox.
ARgh! I want my $4.75 back! -
Harry,
I was so disapointed in Snake Eyes I could cry. I've been racking my brain for two days trying to pin point what went wrong. What I put most blame on is the trailer. I first saw the trailer in the opening of The Truman Show, and even though I love Nick Cage and would have seen the movie anyway, the trailer made this movie appear suspensful with a good conspiracy plot and just an all around good murder mystery. So I was pumped up for three weeks, I made double date plans with friends and practically counted down the days.
I'm upset that the bad guy was reveled 30 minutes into the movie, and the "conspiracy" was discovered in the same scene 20 minutes into the movie. I'd like to know where the police truck came from at the end of the movie and how did they know that the "bad guy" was really the bad guy. Why did they add that super cheesey scene between Cage and Guglio at the end, it would have been better if Cage would have just gone to jail, or disappeared somewhere.
I still love Nick, this movie hasn't tarnished that,I love it when he plays cocky, charged up, ready-for-anything, smart ass men as only he can do. If it wasn't for him I may have left the theater half way through, although I guess than I would have spared myself the rediculous ending.
Thanks for having such a cool web site. Take care, Rebecca
-
I know that the ending was changed and the tidal wave was taken out. So why does Ricky say to the girl at the end that sometimes he "wishes I would have drowned in that tunnel?" They re-shot the ending but they couldn't re-shoot the last scene? And why was the money that Ricky gave the reporter on the ground in the control room when he was confronting Gary Sinise? Was it a clue that was never followed up on, or a symbol for Ricky's "blood money"?
Cage was fun to watch, and some shots were incredible (although I think the opening was broken up between the blurred camera sweeps), but using Sinise as the actual bad guy held about the same suspense as it did in "Ransom". I knew it was him just from the trailer. -
Let me be not the first to say...Snake Eyes sucked!!! And I mean that more than anything I've ever meant before in my entire life. I was wondering if anybody else had picked up on that whole end scene fuck-up where Cage refers to drowning in the un-shot tidal wave scene...Good job, guy above me! So that was like a metaphor for the whole movie experience...one huge fuck-up! I was so pissed off that this movie was no murder-mystery, but rather the same story told over and over until the audience says "Ok, Ok, we're not f-ing 3rd graders...you don't have to spell the shit out for us" Don't know about you guys but I wan't a movie that challenges my intellect..or at least something that might leave me guessing. DePalma...take a hint from Keyser Soze...the audience is smarter than you think!
-
Harry,
I was an extra on the set of Snake Eyes (one of thousands) in Montreal last summer. While Shooting, I thought
that the story seemed a little thin (what i could see of it), the set looked kinda cheap, and Nic Cage's acting was
a little much (from a few hundred feet away). I told myself that the set would look better on film all would reveal
itself when I saw the film. It did not. The set looked cheap, the acting was unconvincing and the plot was thin.
A real disappointment.
Ian Cameron
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~i_camer/ -
Your review of "Snake Eyes" hit all the big flaws I noticed too.
1. You don't really care for anyone in the film except the chick, and you don't even know her until the middle of the film.
2. Cage's character IS too over the top and screwed up.
3. The bad guy is predictable (at least it was to me) and was exposed too early.
4. Ending bad.
5. Film almost too stylish, like the important thing was to be "cool" and "innovative" to the point where nothing else matched up.
sk -
Well, seeing as how 99.9% of the reviews have put this movie down, I must be one of the fews folks in the world to have at least like some of this movie. I thought the first half hour was riveting (I've seen hundreds of movies called riveting, this was one of the few for me). From then on in I was in a good mood. Biggest problem with the movie was the ads and trailers. It made the whole story obvious and predictable. I'd have to agree that this was more of a craftmanship film. And seeing as one of my passions is cinematography, that helped in my liking as well. I can't say I loved the movie, but from the crap that I've waded through in the theaters this summer (Leathal Weapon 4, Godzilla, Armageddon, etc.), this movie was a brighter point.
-
don't bother with this one... The Avengers makes this movie look good. Can't believe that two great actors wasted their time.
-
As an inveterate De Palma fan who has seen most of his movies three times or more, I was disappointed in SNAKE EYES the first time I saw it, but I went back a second time on a hunch and saw it again, and couldn't for the life of me figure out what I HADN'T liked the first time around (except for the ending -- not the epilogue, which I thought was fine -- a classic example of De Palma's sardonic romanticism -- but the preposterous reshot stagger-down-the-halls police-car-crashing-through-the-wall ending).
I think it was a matter of accepting the "rules" and rhythm of the movie, the (admittedly high) pitch of Cage's performance, the fact that the conspiracy is unraveled in the first third and after that it's just a matter of following the characters as they rebound off, or barely miss, one another. De Palma's suspense is all about geography, and the patterns of the protagonists moving around the casino are pleasing in and of themselves. Of course, you have to be in the mindset where it gives you a thrill to see Carla Gugino walking straight away from the camera and almost run into the stretcher with the shooter's corpse coming down the 45-degree angle perpendicular to the camera... I guess we all have our own peculiar pleasures...
Two notes about the long shots that bookend the movie. (1) Clearly the reason the line of dialogue about "drowning in the tunnel" is still in the movie is because the last scene is done in one, extremely complicated (in terms of staging rather than camera movement) shot, and it would presumably have been probibitively expensive to re-shoot (and too obvious to re-dub). (2) Although the vaunted opening scene is amazing by any standards, there are clearly several spots where a cut could have been hidden, of which the swish pans are only the most obvious. I look forward to frame-by-framing it on a disc someday and trying to detect the seams (although I've watched that damn dolly-in on the train in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE frame by frame forwards and backwards and I sure can't see the cut that must be there somewhere). I like to think that De Palma put those "safety" breaks in there in case he COULDN'T get the scene in one shot after a few tries to give himself options, but did in fact manage to do it. On the other hand, the sleight-of-hand tricks in masking those cuts would, in their own way, be almost as admirable as the actual uncut shot.
Finally, it's not fair to imply that SNAKE EYES was critically savaged (although I have to admit the critical response was more negative thas positive) -- I've seen some quite good reviews of it, and not from insignificant sources, either.
One wonders if the tidal wave scene was really more ridiculous than the scene they replaced it with. Aside from the now-inaccurate line of dialogue in the final scene, it doesn't make any sense for Cage to return to Gugino's hiding place -- whereas presumably in the "original" cut he has to go there to rescue her from drowning. (And Sinise's speech about the soldiers drowning is clearly set up for a payoff later in the movie, which now never comes.) Since the movie seems to be a relative critical failure and something of a commercial bust, I guess it's unlikely we'll see a release of the "Director's Cut" version with the tidal wave (although this seems like just the thing for DVD technology).
For that matter, I'd be curious to see whatever version of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE it was that De Palma preferred but Cruise changed, not to mention the original, "darker" cut of CASUALTIES OF WAR before De Palma fiddled with it to make it more palatable (unsuccessfully, as it turned out), according to THE DEVIL'S CANDY.
Incidentally, I think RAISING CAIN kicks ass. Tarantino did a great monologue on the subject on his CHARLIE ROSE appearance (on the "special edition" PULP FICTION laserdisc), on the premise that De Palma did CAIN just to annoy people, and it is in fact enormously annoying, but in a way that's so controlled and witty I really dig it. (I think it's FUNNY that he put dream sequences within flashbacks, and that around the two-thirds mark you have no clue what's real and what isn't, including which Lithgow characters are figments and which aren't. And I love the elaborate self-parody of the climax.)
Finally, getting off De Palma for a moment, when people discuss long single-shots, amid all the usual suspects (TOUCH OF EVIL, THE PLAYER, HARD-BOILED, BOOGIE NIGHTS, CASINO, every De Palma movie since BONFIRE) one that never gets mentioned in KISS ME DEADLY, which has several longish scenes done in one shot (all three of Mike Hammer's interrogations), including a very elegant and complex one at the boxing gym. Still, I think we can all agree (even the De Palma haters and the SNAKE EYES haters) that the SNAKE EYES opening is now the one to beat. -
I have been managing my movie theater for almost 7 years now. And I admit, I am pretty hard on movies. I thought Armageddon sucked very bad, but when people were exiting the theater, tears were strolling down their faces and I had to run into the office just so they wouldn't see me laughing at them. I loved Out of Sight, but people walked out of it very unimpressed and talking about grocery lists and babysitters. The look on people's faces as they walk out of Snake Eyes though is a look of total disgust. For every filmmaker in the world who will work with Nic, remember one thing: Put him on his leash, or you will get the crazy erratic performance he gives here. Paramount's marketing division should be fired because this is like the 100th movie in which I saw the trailer and knew who the villain was. I remember when I was watching Face/Off and saw the trailer for Kiss the Girls. They showed the outline of the killer and then I saw Cary Elwes and I said to everyone "He is the killer, Look!" And lo, and behold 5 months later when the friggin sucky movie comes out, guess who the friggin killer is. Paramount's trailers show TOO much, plain and simple. So if I were to rate the summer's movies so far it would have to be.
1. Saving Private Ryan
2. X-Files
3. Truman Show
4. The Negotiator
5. Out of Sight
6. Mulan
7. There's Something About Mary
8. Bulworth
9. Horse Whisperer
10. Baseketball
11. Lethal Weapon 4(only for Jet Li)
12. Small Soldiers
13. Disturbing Behavior
That's about all from awesome to decent movies of the summer. At the bottom of the list would include Armageddon, Snake Eyes, Godzilla, Hope Floats(I hate dumb women movies as opposed to smart women movies such as Joy Luck Club), Halloween H20, Dr. Dolittle, and of course Avengers.
Next summer will be better though, I PROMISE -
I really appreciate the comments made by Gil Jordan about De Palma and Snake Eyes. I totaly agree that this film is the least succesfull one made that De Palma in a long time. But still, there are cinematic ideas in ten minutes of Snake Eyes than in all of the Leathal Weapon films put together. De Palma might not be a great storyteller, but he sure know how to make great cinematic ballet. His films are always about the process of looking, which is pure cinema. By the way, speaking of long takes, De Palma started doing those way before BONFIRE. In fact, there is one amazing long take with a very complex camera movement in CARRIE just before they announce the winner at the prom. It's just out of this world! Anyway, I was disappointed by SNAKE EYES, but I'll see it again. One last thing... RAISING CAIN does kick ass. It's a wonderful, stylish, outrageous black comedy. Anyone who takes it seriously is a fool.
Martin Larue. -
Well, I have to agree with everybody who hates this film. It sucked. I left the theatre knowing I had just blown a bunch of my money. Luckily, I saw it at a matinee, so less was wasted, but anyways...
What really disappointed me is that I love DePalma. And I love Cage. they're both great at what they do. So I was totally ready and willing to go see this flick, with the higest expectations, even after bad reviews. What I left with was a feeling that the movie was worse than The Avengers.
I'll quickly say that Cage's character was interesting; I liked the fact they decided to make him not some good little cop, but a guy who takes bribes and will do what he has to, even if it doesn't fall in the law's jurisdictions.
On the actual movie...the movie starts off so great-that opening shot of Nick Cage, just one steady shot as he walks about, with no camera cuts. It was remarkable. And there were other great scenes too. But there was just too much ridiculous crap in it, and a see-through plot. I had my doubts as to how good the film's plot would be, even though I was looking forward to it, after seeing the preview. I turned to my best friend Nick and said, 'Gary Sinise is the bad guy.'No bull. And then, I sat there, waiting to see if I was right. And I was. That was what disappointed me the most, because if you can guess plot elements from the trailer...that's not good.
And then, the ending, which was just the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Not only did Cage's annoying incoherent mumbling just piss me off, but then we see the reporter standing outside IN A HURRICANE. what the hell? No one else was even outside, and the wind had knocked over that ball thing. Would many people be watching tv, let alone have electricity? And then the cops drive through the wall because the giant millenium ball thing rolls at 'em? Now that was just pathetic. Couldn't they have turned the other way, AWAY from the wall?
I did however enjoy the last part of the movie, with the news clips. It referenced back to Sinise saying earlier that if he did play the hero, dirt would come up on Cage's corruptness. And I thought that was neat when that happened.
And then during the credits we watch guys work on construction. What a great way to end it. I didn't see much of it, as I was already hurrying out of the theatre.
Well, maybe it wasn't as bad as the Avengers, but it was damn bad. -
Just to make sure no one thinks I'm a COMPLETE idiot...that part about the construction workers being a good ending is sarcastic. it sucked.
Sorry to have to post again, but I felt I needed to make myself clear... -
Personally, I agree with Harry on this one... Snake Eyes has things that I love, and things that I hate. Personally, I didn't see right through the Sinise villain thing, so either I'm stupid, I haven't seen enough thrillers, or it wasn't as obvious as everyone thought it was. I did dislike the fact that we find out who's behind everything so early; it ruined what could have been a great mysetery. All in all, the major problems in this film are all on the writing level. This film could have been great, had their been more tension in the movie, had we cared more about what was going on.
Oh, and just for the record, I liked Nic Cage's performance. So there. -
I feel compelled right now to shed my thoughts on the film Snake Eyes. here i am reading several reviews that say this movie is over-done, terrible, flawed and poorly-written. But you all missed the point. This movie isn't about plot. It isn't about characters. This is an exercise in film technique. DePalma is a master when it comes to looking at something interesting. I have never seen a movie of his that wasn't interesting to just LOOK AT. And Snake Eyes, I feel, leads the pack in pure interest. I felt that Cage's over-the-top performance was welcome. His character, not very well-written but enough to understand, is completely larger than life. An everyone-should-be-my-friend type. Gary, at least I felt, just LOOKED menacing. For me, that was enough. But overall, I didn't have much problems with it. I think both endings(yes, I have seen both) worked. The tidal-wave did have it's ironic pay-offs and tied up everything with a bow. The theatrical ending misses one thing, however. Gary's henchmen are seen leaving to head towards the tunnel, but are never followed up after that. That was really the only problem I had with the movie. Overall, I thought it was great entertainment.
-
I feel compelled right now to shed my thoughts on the film Snake Eyes. here i am reading several reviews that say this movie is over-done, terrible, flawed and poorly-written. But you all missed the point. This movie isn't about plot. It isn't about characters. This is an exercise in film technique. DePalma is a master when it comes to looking at something interesting. I have never seen a movie of his that wasn't interesting to just LOOK AT. And Snake Eyes, I feel, leads the pack in pure interest. I felt that Cage's over-the-top performance was welcome. His character, not very well-written but enough to understand, is completely larger than life. An everyone-should-be-my-friend type. Gary, at least I felt, just LOOKED menacing. For me, that was enough. But overall, I didn't have much problems with it. I think both endings(yes, I have seen both) worked. The tidal-wave did have it's ironic pay-offs and tied up everything with a bow. The theatrical ending misses one thing, however. Gary's henchmen are seen leaving to head towards the tunnel, but are never followed up after that. That was really the only problem I had with the movie. Overall, I thought it was great entertainment.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Antepenultimate THRONES!! Lane Pryce Returns To MAD MEN!! Roger Waters On 60 MINUTES!! Plus GIRLS, VEEP, SIMPSONS, BURGERS, KILLING, METALOCALYPSE, SHERLOCK!! THE LAST SUNDAY OF SWEEPS!! -- 102 total posts 95 posts
- Duncan Jones To Tell The Story Of Ian Fleming! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- SNL Says Goodbye To Kristen Wiig!! -- 56 total posts 56 posts
- Hercules Picks Next Season’s 10 Most Promising New Broadcast Series!! -- 131 total posts 43 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will traumatize you. -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- "Some Men Are Coming To Kill Us. We're Going To Kill Them First." Teaser To SKYFALL! -- 34 total posts 34 posts
- There Can Be Only One... Ryan Reynolds?! -- 404 total posts 30 posts
- Dan Harmon Done As COMMUNITY Showrunner!! -- 148 total posts 21 posts
- Quint thinks John Hillcoat's prohibition-era flick LAWLESS is violently awesome! Cannes 2012! -- 69 total posts 20 posts
- Adrian Hieatt Gives Us His Second Daily Report From KAPOW! Comic Convention in London! The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! TOTAL RECALL! DC NEW 52! DAVE GIBBONS! And More! -- 18 total posts 18 posts