Snake Eyes
A movie review by "Average Joe" Barlow
(c) Copyright 1998
STARRING: Nicholas Cage, Gary Sinise DIRECTOR: Brian De Palma WRITERS: Brian De Palma and David Koepp RATED/YEAR: R/1998
Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights" wow-ed the critics last year, and rightfully so: the film's frank portrayl of the pornographic industry/drug culture of the late seventies was highlighted by a great script, virtuoso acting, and some of the most innovative cinematography ever seen in a low-budget film. Virtually every review mentioned its incredible opening shot, in which a "God's-eye-view" camera swoops down from the sky, pans over the exterior of a popular night-club, then drifts inside. We then "walk" through the club, meeting our primary characters as we dodge the dancers and waitresses. This description may not sound terribly impressive, but look closely: the shot was filmed in ONE continuous four-minute take, with no cuts or edits. The effect is subtle, but it effectively draws us into the twisted world of the movie by removing the cinematic devices (including edits) that tend to distance audiences from the action. Director Brian De Palma, probably best-known for his famous film adaptation of Stephen King's "Carrie," does Anderson one better with his new movie "Snake Eyes." In the opening scene, we meet Rick Santoro (Nicholas Cage), a New Jersey police officer in charge of security at a championship boxing match. We follow Cage as he places a bet on the match, fights a criminal, chats with both his wife and his mistress on the telephone, hangs out with his best friend Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise), notices two suspicious women, watches the fight... and witnesses a murder. That's a lot to absorb in the opening scenes of ANY movie, but get this: De Palma shoots it all in a single unbroken take, lasting nearly twenty minutes! It's a flawless performance from all involved, and the actors never falter as the camera works its magic. No matter what the critics may think of the movie, this scene is going to get attention. The murder victim is an influential politician, heavily involved with a secret government project (is there any other kind?) designed to produce a new type of missile. Santoro knows two things: other people will die if the killer is not apprehended, and if he doesn't get to the bottom of the case before the FBI arrives, his friend Dunne (who was away from his post at the time the shooting occurred, violating the orders that he'd received) may be blamed for the murder. A tropical storm will prevent the arrival of the FBI for ninety minutes, and the two men begin their investigation. The exits to the arena are sealed, and 14,000 people, one of whom is a killer, watch and wait. The film uses a creative technique to get us involved in the mystery: we, the audience, never witness certain important events (such as the boxing match, which contains an important clue) for ourselves. Instead, we must rely on the recollections of the various characters, who disagree with each other as often as not. What really happened? Who's right? This is the mystery that Santoro (and we) must find out. One of the many wonderful touches in this film is the passage of time: one minute of screen-time equals one-minute of real time, so when Santoro announces that they have ninety minutes to solve the crime, you can set your watch by his word. The film's attention to detail does not rest there: one of our characters has very poor eyesight, and when she loses her glasses early in the film, her subsequent scenes are shot out of focus, giving us a window into her confusion. The intelligence of the movie is clearly shown via shots like this; De Palma clearly is a master of drawing an audience into his world, something he demonstrated equally well in "Carrie." Our characters are consistently interesting, their urgency is communicated, and the air of mystery is so high that when one of our characters turns out to be something other then he/she initally appears, we simply accept it. We're too lost in this world to argue. Although we're not privy to everything, De Palma does allow us access to certain information that the onscreen characters don't have. In one scene, Sinise's character stands outside of a door, listening, trying to decipher what he's hearing on the other side. De Palma does not leave us in suspense, though: the camera, initially behind Sinise, rises, hovers over him, then gives us a peek over the wall and into the room beyond. Another effective shot occurs later in the film, in which Cage's character compares notes on the shooting with one of the "suspicious females" he saw at the outset. We get a "split-screen" display, in which Cage's memory of the shooting is displayed in the left half, and the woman's in the right. They run tangent, in perfect synch, with only very slight differences which reflect their own conflicting memories. The scene is brilliantly edited, and offers new insight into the crime. Stylistic touches such as these make it impossible not to get drawn in. Sadly, it all comes undone in the film's final moments. A major plot problem: a murder has been committed, and the staff of the arena knows that the police want to see all the security tapes that were shot during the fight. All of them are viewed, but the information they need is not there. Then, towards the end of the movie, an employee suddenly remembers that he just installed a NEW, SECRET security camera that very morning! Sheesh, how do you forget about something like that? But the film's biggest offense is the final confrontation between Cage and the villain. It's an absolute joke: the outcome is decided not by the chess-like strategy that the story has shown us thusfar, but by dumb luck: imagine if, in the final lightsaber battle between Vader and Luke in "The Empire Strikes Back," a giant asteroid had appeared from nowhere, crashed through Cloud City, and knocked Vader down the exhaust shaft. That's the same ballpark as the plot-twist used to resolve "Snake Eyes." After being riveted by the movie up until this point, it was impossible not to feel a bit cheated. Pardon my crassness, but if this film were a woman, she'd make out with you for two hours, rip off all your clothes, then suddenly announce that she has to leave. Sure, it's fun at the time, but ultimately unsatisfying. Nonetheless, there's much to like about "Snake Eyes." I'll probably see it at least once more, if only for the flawless opening scene and the other stylistic touches that typically mark De Palma's work. I doubt I'll stay for the final fifteen minutes again, though.
RATING: 3.25 stars (out of a possible five)
This review was written: August 8, 1998 Copyright (c) 1998 by Joe Barlow. This review may be freely distributed as long as ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES are made and this disclaimer remains attached. It may not be reproduced for profit without the written consent of the author. If you have comments or questions, please send them to: jbarlow at earthling dot net (substituting the appropriate symbols, to discourage spam).
----- "Average Joe" Barlow * MiSTie #73097 * Writer/musician/aspiring filmmaker jbarlow@YOURearthling.PANTSnet http://www.ipass.net/~jbarlow {Remove YOUR PANTS to e-mail me.}
The latest movie reviews on my website include "Snake Eyes,"
"Halloween: H20" and "There's Something About Mary"
"Roxanne! You don't have to put on the red light! ... Oh, hello,
Mrs. Gorilla!" - Antaeus Feldspar
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews