Rating: 
Summary: great
Review: this was a great movie great storyline and great actin
Rating: 
Summary: Great ideas aren't always carried out as greatly.
Review: I hadn't heard wonderful things about "Snake Eyes" before I saw it but I wanted to see it for myself anyways because I am a huge fan of Nicolas Cage. The films premise is brilliant, and the way the plot falls together in an almost Tarrantino fashion is eye catching, but a lot of it's wonderful advantages, such as plot, direction and cast are misused. The ending was nothing exiting, and Cage's wonderful performance would have done better in a different film. Even the soundtrack is promising, slightly resembling Jerry Goldsmith's Academy Award Nominated score for "Basic Instinct", but even it has it's flaws. The best part of this film is the first 15 minutes. It is one continuous shot. The camera never breaks pace. Regardless of it's little flaws, it is a cool movie and deserves a couple of viewings and much more enjoyable in the Widescreen Format.
Rating: 
Summary: An offbalanced,overconcieved movie
Review: Snake Eyes is the worst suspense movie of the decade, though it had some good acting, and 1 good scene of the movie and some good humor to give a **1/2. Though everything was good but the suspense , there was no suspense and they gave you the killer in the beggining of the movie . So it quite clear it's not very intresting.
Rating:
Summary: I totaly disagree with that other review!de Palma is a maste
Review: Snake Eyes was great. I don't see where this other review was talking about. It had everything from suspense to humor. Brian de Palma was a mastermind. He is a very Alfred Hicthcockish director by using the film element, what you dont see is even scarier. I thought it was great all around. I think it is one of Cage's best preformances next to FACE/OFF
Rating:
Summary: DePalma the Master Director
Review: Move over arnie,sly and jcvd. Nic Cage is the new action star of the decade! Look at his movie all action and thrill (the Rock, Face/off and ConAir) are my favorite movies and now Snake Eyes is also my favorite. This is the best movie of 1998. The reason it didn't made any money, because it was release in August! It should release in May or June! So, see this movie over and over again!!!
Rating:
Summary: This movie was very good
Review: Snake Eyes was a good movie with all the aspects I expect to see in a thriller...The "WHO done it", the "WHY he did it and HOW do we figure it out" and the "ARE they gonna get him" Bacily this movie is a small mini mistery-suspence-thriller. The part I don't like is that some people might not understand the plot in this exiting but(at some points in the movie)boring.
Rating:
Summary: A Must for DePalma Fans
Review: After tripping up on MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, it's nice to see DePalma on firmer ground. No, the plot doesn't make much sense, but who cares? The cast is committed, the look is great and DePalma ties it all together with blazing pyrotechnic style. If there's ever a "Hollywood" director out there who should do a non-narrative film, it'sa DePalma.
Rating: 
Summary: Two-thirds of Brilliance...
Review: Brian de Palma seems to be one of these directors who goes all out on the script handed to him - he makes a terrific job of something average, something that could have been brilliant. He had this problem to a lesser extent with Mission Impossible, which managed to balance up enough of its characters with it's astonishingly bravura set-pieces to make you forget the irritating stumps of logic. Carlito's Way had the compelling (if overdone) performance of Al Pacino and the minutely perfect sets, but lost it a little with the characterisation.Snake Eyes should have had it all. It had Nicholas Cage playing a corrupt, on-the-edge cop with a mischievous streak (anything to escape incredible boredom of Con Air and City Of Angels), a (very loose) adaption of the Japanese classic Rashomon with multiple view-points (something de Palma excels at) and one huge, but confined location. This could have been perfect. So much of it is a near miss that you'll stand up after watching it and curse the person who thought that the last twenty minutes should have all the characters stumbling about like punch-drunk rejects from a Shakespearian tradgedy... The brilliance of the opening shot is actually ecclipsed by the terrific overhead shot, panning from hotel room to hotel room, and the terrific moment when Cage starts thinking of all the different people's version of the same story in multiple-split screen. But the ending is awful. Not the VERY end, which is actually quite cool, and we see that there's never a truly happy ending, but the ACTION ending, which seems shockingly misjudged. Do yourself a favour... As soon as the mastermind behind the whole thing comes out of the shadows and confronts Cage, fast forward for - oooh... about twenty minutes. Make a different finale up in your head - I guarantee it'll be more in-keeping with the film than what was actually used.
Rating:
Summary: 98% of this is a great thriller
Review: Snake Eyes is a very entertaining movie. Nicolas Cage is hilarious as a hyperactive crooked cop, and Gary Sinise is good as the stone faced, straight shooter that he normally plays. Before I saw this, critics complained that the identity of the villain was given away too early. But I found this made it more exciting because you didn't know who was going to get to the girl first. The only let down is the ending, which is one of the dumbest, most pointless, unnecessary endings I have ever seen. Otherwise, a great thriller.
Rating:
Summary: De Palma Gets High on Celluloid!
Review: It never fails: mention a De Palma film and you'll polarize the room. Just look at the reviews here: everything from 1-5 stars. I happen to fall on the side of ***** myself, but I have been following De Palma's career for over twenty years, and think I know what he's up to more than most folks. In a nutshell, the style of this film IS its subtance, and I'm not making facile excuses. De Palma has explored with more daring and consistency than any other American director of the last 30 years how audio-visual technique ( music and soundtrack are as important as image to his operatic style) can evoke meaning and emotion without the need to ground it in realistic dialogue, character psychology, and "classic" plot formulae. De Palma pushes us to the edge of our willingness to suspend disbelieve, even to ludicrous degrees, because he knows how the power of cinema can suture us into the action projected on the screen, despite our self-conscious pooh pooh-ing of his films' many coincidences and over-the-top performances (of both his actors and his camerawork). Snake Eyes is all about this very idea, both for us as spectators and for Rick, the spectator within. Wasn't the tagline after all, "Don't believe your eyes?" I also think that the sour response so many people have to the lightly parodic deus-ex-machina ending indicates the increasingly course tastes of contemporaray audiences who prefer the scatology of the Farelly Bothers or the pseudo-profundities of The Force and The Matrix. And Sean Penn's recent criticisms of Cage's performance are insensitive to Cage (who seems fully to know what he's doing here as an actor) and to De Palma (who directed Penn in an equally over-the-top but knowing performance in Carlito's Way). Nevertheless, it may simply be the case that De Palma is not for all tastes. Perhaps only hardcore cinephiles with a highly developed sense of irony can appreciate De Palma, a parodox of contemporary cinema who is at once experimental and commercial. For others accustomed to standard fare, he is simply bewildering. But for too many hypocritical middle-brow critics, he has become a guilty pleasure, the "direcor you hate to love" (and not the other way around).
|
