Rating: 
Summary: Sad
Review: Brian De Palma has been known to make a weak script very strong with his daring Hitchcockian inspired visuals and camera angles. This story on the surface is a blatant rip-off of Akira Kurosawa's much more brilliant "Rashomon".A story of a corrupt cop at a boxing match where a senior govt official is assasinated, this has so many loose ends in the last half that it made me shudder. The start and early half of the movie was spectacular and it showed so much promise but in the mediocre middle, something starts to go terribly wrong when the characterization lingers on one character too much. If this is supposed to be a modern day rip off of "Rashomon" then people should have been careful not to just put in some elements, but all. one little whisk does not make a proper broth. Don't get me wrong,I love my film directors and Mr.De Palma is up there with the much better "Mission Impossible" but this one just fails ticking. promising but a let down. rent this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Another great film from Cage.
Review: I love Nicolas Cage.He is such a good actor, because unlike actors such as Sylvestor Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger who put out in invincible sort of act, he puts out the innocent guy who really has a life and can be killed act, and it works great.Thismovie is basically about a boxing matchl;there is a shooting during a big fight, and as the story line unravels you discover all kinds of conspiracies amdn mysteries.This movie keeps your attention, i loved it.
Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock ending with a hitch
Review: Snake Eyes is a better movie than some have concluded; noteworthy is how in the first half of the movie it shows you the view points of the witnesses which is how it is in real life when trying to construct what rreally happened in a complex event. DePalma employs some OUTSTANDING camera work; particularly the camera view replicating from the prize fighter's eyes that then turns into the mirror and you see the fighter, shadow boxing, and the scene in the upper hotel rooms where the camera looks down and glides over several adjacent rooms to show how people really behave behind closed doors. On a tactical note when the Gary Sinese character shoots THROUGH the adjacent material to hit the alleged assasin that is very well done since in real gunfights you shoot through to the enemy (if your bullets will penetrate) not waltz into a line-of-sight like a Hollywood gunfight. The movie's failure is that it revealed that Gary Sinese's character is the mastermind/villain in the movie middle, the film should have lead us to believe he was a good guy longer, until the near end, have the betrayal and beating of the Nicholas Cage character. The rationale behind Sinese's character that he was fed up that the Navy didn't have an effective close-range missile defense system rings true, but I doubt such a person would resort to evil to get a good result, but the servicemen's frustration was well portrayed. The girl's desire to not waste billions on a defense system that can't work makes both viewpoints very timely in light of recent current events. These revelations should have come as a shock just at the end as DePalma did in Body Double. Then have the weak, bleeding and battered Cage returns to the girl in hiding and get at the truth just as Sinese arrives to finish them both off. Here is where DePalma succeeds with the Hitchcock ethos of suspense; a weakened hero, a tainted hero, in over his head, forces all around him converging to destroy him...dragging himself nevertheless to rescue the girl, a marvelous scene. The ending would have been better if the two had made a run for it, the girl shot and Cage and Sinese scuffling and then Sinese pumping bullets into Cage who refuses to die as but he fails to reach the FBI agents in the auditoreum Sinese runs out of bullets, and Cage makes it. The FBI agents turn on Sinese and open fire when he refuses to drop his silencer-equipped gun (not a virtuous law enforcement lay-out). Have Cage in the hospital on life support for days waking up, with a hand holding his---the girl played elegantly by Carla Gugino who demurs when his wife/son enter to greet him. Baring a better ending to the danger, I like how the film showed how Cage was a hero for a brief time until his past caught up with him and we as we are fond to do in America decided to knock our icon off its pedestal. There is perhaps truth to the idea that good people who get caught up in a bad web of circumstances just need a fresh start to reshape their lives. Show Cage in prison in despair, his life shattered, and then have him visited by Carla Gugino who says she'll wait for him, have him roll the dice and get two sixes; "No more snake eyes".
Rating: 
Summary: Camelot sets sail, then sinks------in a "white squall"
Review: In 1960, America was imbued with a we-can-do-anything humanistic spirit of its new President, John F. Kennnedy, America was prosperous materially, but uneasy that it was not as strong as it once was in WWII to meet the threat of global communism. Certainly this film is "Dead Poets Society" afloat before it sinks, and this is the critical difference. Director Ridley Scott makes you wonder if he's using films to work out his own internal struggles in his head, and reality rescues him here because the events are based on a true story, so if Scott doesn't get the message, he at least depicts it and its then up to us to get it. Something marvelous happens even though its terrible--that delivers the message, and that is the white squall storm that sinks the ship and kills several people you don't want to see die. This is what sets this film apart from make-believe scenarios like Dead Poets, because those folks are never in DANGER. These folks put their idealism to the test of the real world, requiring REAL courage. The angst of never-having-fully-lived by America's pampered in Poets smacks of trite self-indulgence, in this movie this Kennedy-era idealism runs smack into reality. President Teddy Roosevelt warned us as we grew pampered and at ease from industrial-age labor saving devices that we would stuill have to challenge ourseles physically, so he insured the natural state of the american west was conserved for us to explore. In this film, the sailing ship is a similar "retro-challenge" to build character, complete with a young idealistic character from the TV show "Party of Five" who looks like a young Kennedy in a sailing ship in several scenes. By teaching the boys to respect the sea and the ship, they will learn to respect each other. The trouble with Camelot--is its self-indulgent idealism, not practical idealism, so the efforts of the boys to become men are spent on a flight of fancy in a dangerous sailing ship when we have much more sea-worthy vessels available and meaningful tasks to do, not just tasks required as Jeff Bridges' skipper warns from the beginning are required to "keep the ship together". The conflict in the film is the conflict of materialistic, pampered America to produce sturdy men who can face the storms of real life; the parents in the film sense this and are torn between safety and the need to take reasonable risks, and the boys themselves think there has to be "a better way". The point of the film is NOT to "throw caution into the wind" counting on humanistic hubris but to take every precaution possible so you can set sail by the "wind"--a metaphor for life's forces--and live to see another day. But along the way, there are warnings that all is not well. Offshore near Cuba, a communist gunboat shoots across the ship's bow and boards the boat. Bridges stands up to the commie and sends him on his way, though his compass is smashed and he must use his humanistic skills to pilot the ship...while over the horizon the ships of the ill-fated "Bay of Pigs" amphibious invasion appear....a foreshadowing of another "Camelot" type enterprise ready to hit a wall of harsh reality..days later as America is sending its first astronaut into space heard over the radio, the weather worsens... Now that the boys who are now more mature, young men, most would expect a return home in a happy ending, but the storm hits and they lose the ship and some very fine people. Then in typical American fashion, we hold a court-room trial or a hearing to pin the blame on a "scapegoat" rather than face the truth that its our own mentality that is at fault. That scapegoat is the Skipper and his judgments when it should be the soundness of the entire sailing-ship-as-retro-character-builder-for-teenage-boys-in-an-unforgiving-environment-of-the-sea. Full grown MEN die at sea in much larger, more seaworthy vessels. A similar tragic ending took place later by unrealistically wishing 7-year old Jessica Dubroff to pilot an airplane across the U.S. Even with the best humanism, the skipper loses the ship and his lovely wife, several staff and boys to the sea. He is devastated. Is his idealism destroyed for good? Jeff Bridges in the courtroom says that control and the ship "got away from him" and "he didn't see it coming"-----humanistic hubris will do that to you. This is exactly what took place with JFK and his Camelot humanism (phrase coined by his wife Jackie, afterwards): it ran head first into failures caused by unrealistic planning/preparations at the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis and the conspiracy of gunmen at Dealey Plaza. It continued with RFK throwing "caution into the wind" and not having adequate security in place before he too, was gunned down. The surviving boys rally to the Skipper's side in the end, reminding him that in life we have to band together during the hour of crisis, that sometimes in life you have to "take your lumps" and "drive on". The film suggests this fatalism should be accepted, I disagree. We should accept that its a possibility that the elements might get the better of us, but to do EVERYTHING IN OUR MEANS TO DEFEAT them, to include---but not over-depend on---human skill and have the HUMILITY to also use technology to help overcome the elements. That's what men do if we are going to make headway in this dangerous, challenging world we live in eloquently told by the Party of Five actor at film's end, and foretold earlier by Alan Shepherd's space capsule spotted by the boys in their lifeboats. But that's not what happens in America, lately every time we "fall off a horse", we "wash our hands of it" in a senate hearing or a courtroom (Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia...) and then vow to never "get back on", LEARNING HOW TO DO IT BETTER---Not more humanistic hubris but PHYSICAL means; life jackets, more bouyant sailing ships, better self-righting life boats, navigation/weather aids, recovery parachutes to prevent Jessica Dubroff-type aircraft crashes etc., This propensity to "throw the towel in" is how we drift from a nation of doers to a nation of talkers and computer game players. Jeff Bridges and his crew were trying to "pass the torch" of direct engagement of reality with high ideals, that he continued on to be one of the first Peace Corps Directors and the boys went to Vietnam and survived is testimony that their character didn't fail. The director of the film seems confused about whether the message should be to accept idealism with fatalism or if idealism is non-functional in the world; the real message is to make idealism functional.
Rating:
Summary: Cage Is outstanding in this film!
Review: A real hard edge stylish conspiracy thriller that keeps you going all the way from start to finnish. Nicolas Cage in one of his best roles plays crooked Atlantic City cop Rick Santro, who is into just about anything illiegal is caught in the middle of an assaenation attempt of the defense minister during a heavyweight title boxing match. At the same time he relaizes the fight is a fix and has something to do with the murder. De Palma's visual teqnique is used here the same way it was used in another Conspracy thriller "BLOW OUT" But Cage's captivating performaces is what makes this film worth watching even when he's at his most annyoning self he still maneges never going over the top. Slowed down a bit during the middle of the film to allow the storyline to be understood by the viewer and reached a satisfying conclusion.
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointment.
Review: I'm a fan of Brian De Palma; he's simply one of the most exciting and gifted directors to watch. He's helmed suspenseful thrillers (Body Double), entertaining action/adventure (Mission: Impossible, The Untouchables), and even compelling and enthralling sci-fi (Mission to Mars). What the man is known for is his dazzling visual style, and with Snake Eyes, in terms of creative camera angles and visuals, he outdoes himself more than ever. Unfortunately, the movie itself isn't very good, a disappointment in more ways than one. Sure enough, De Palma's direction is breathtaking, featuring everything, from long tracking shots, split screens, first person POV, all the way to making the walls of a building look interconnected. This is easily one of De Palma's best looking films. Actually, Snake Eyes is really decent entertainment for the first 75 minutes. It's really in the last 15 minutes that everything really seems to go wrong, stemmed mainly from a flat, suspenseless finale. The movie as a whole really doesn't feature a whole lot of suspense, but it is engaging and interesting for the majority of the running time. The performances are another thing that prevent this from being another straight-to-cable thriller. Nicolas Cage is fun to watch in his scenery chewing role as the corrupt cop. Gary Sinise, one of my favorite actors, eschews menace with a twisted sense of ethics and morals. Picture a less merciful version of Ed Harris's anti-villain from The Rock and you get the idea. The real problems are the fact that everything is done in such a routine manner; there aren't any plot twists (or at least none that are surprising) and there's very little true action or suspense. Now that I think of it, the entire film's quality hinges completely one De Palma's direction and the two lead performances. Everything else is either mediocre or easily forgettable. Brian De Palma shows he hasn't lost any of his style, and while he did seriously restrain himself in Mission to Mars (a positive thing), he can still hold a viewer's attention. Let's just hope the next thriller he works on has a script worthy of his style.
Rating: 
Summary: A great setup leads to nowhere
Review: Snake Eyes is a film that begins in such a grand fashion that it's almost unbearable to watch how bad it ends. It's a film that reaches it's climax way too early, and then relies on camera tricks and nifty angles to sustain the viewer's interest. Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) is taking a vacation, watching a boxing match in Atlantic City with his best friend, Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise). However, not long into the fight, a the secretary of defense is shot and the entire arena is closed off, sealing in 14,000 people. Santoro takes charge of the investigation but heads closer to a truth that he doesn't want to face. With a plot like that you would expect some interesting twists. Well, there's none at all, which is a surprise in itself since De Palma helmed the superior erotic thrillers Dressed to Kill and Body Double (the latter of which featured three unpredictable plot twists). De Palma doesn't even try to conceal the villain's identitiy, which is revealed halfway through the film (and isn't the least bit surprising, either). Well, you might wonder if it has any action sequences or anything of the sort. The answer is not really. This is a film in which you can actually keep count of all the gunshots fired. The film certainly could have used a lot more adrenaline-pumping moments. There's one barely decent suspense sequence that uses some interesting camera angles, making each room in a hotel look intertwined, at least from a top view. Actually, now that I think of it, that's really the only film's suspense sequence, or at least the only one that's not artificial in its payoff. I can't really say much for the acting. Nicolas Cage can be fun, and he almost pulls it off here, but his character change is so sudden that it could put a viewer off-guard and that's not a good thing. Gary Sinise fares better with his less overdone performance and keeps a consistent tone. As with the recent Reindeer Games (a thriller far better than this one), Sinise in danger of being typecast in these sort of roles so he'd best be careful. He's far too excellent an actor to spend his time playing these sort of characters. For a while, the film has some things going for it. There are some dazzling camera angles and the employment of the different point-of-view stories reminisces of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, but there's too much off track in the film and the conclusion is absolutely horrendous, turning what might have been a fairly bad movie into an awful mess.
Rating:
Summary: A Brian De Palma Masterpiece
Review: One of Brian De Palma's most unique movies, Snake Eyes is filled with all of De Palma's unique directing styles and visual beauty. From the split screen shots, to the long crane shots of several hotel rooms, to the thirteen minute opening where no cut is visible, this movie has it all. An amazing story with several plot twists, Snake Eyes centers around the same event from several character's point of views, a task in which only De Palma could have pulled off. Snake Eyes is clearly De Palma at his directing best. If you want to see a first rate thriller with all of De Palma's original directing beauty, see Snake Eyes.
Rating:
Summary: It depends on what kind of movie watcher you are.
Review: Maybe the plot has been used, but if it is well played out (as in this movie) it has permission to be reuesd. I haven't seen an action mystery before, so I found it enjoyable. The camerawork was VERY good, and the style of presentation was also very good. People have been trashing the ending, and it has been said that it was bad, far-fetched, predictable, etc. Well, I did find it predictable, but that did not spoil it for me. I didn't even notice the criticism until people brought it up. This movie seems to play on your emotion and your eyes. Anyone can take it apart and compare the plot or criticize the ending, but great actors like Cage and Sinise give it emotion. To really enjoy this movie, don't analyze the movie making ("oh, I've seen stuff like this before, it's him, the movie is pointless now"), put yourself in the characters shoes and really ride with it. As the back cover says, the movie is really about "the shocking truth that Santoro doesn't want to believe". My point: If you are a movie analyzer watching the movie from the outside, seeking to take apart the plot and the directing and whatever. This won't produce the satisfaction that you are looking for, and you probably won't like it. If you are the type that gets with the characters, feels their emotion with them, and basically watches the movie from the inside, you will love it like I did. I give this movie four stars for a great ride from the inside, but in all fairness a predictable and perhaps far-fetched (not by any means bad) ending* cost it a star. * action ending, not ending ending
Rating:
Summary: a disappointment
Review: The only good point about this movie is Cage's excellent performance. Almost everything else is under average. The movie repeats some familiar twists of a generic thriller/murder mystery without any ingeniuty. I would say that I could figure out the whole story from the first 20 minutes. Everything after that was mere filling the gaps. I felt disappointed with this movie in general.
| 
