When we think about late ’90s action thrillers, a few titles instantly emerge—The Matrix, Fight Club, and The Sixth Sense often dominate the conversation. However, one film from that era usually goes unnoticed despite its bold choices and captivating premise: Snake Eyes (1998), directed by Brian De Palma and starring Nicolas Cage. Although it didn’t reach blockbuster status or redefine the genre, Snake Eyes deserves recognition as an overlooked piece of cinema.

Snake Eyes grabs attention right from the start with De Palma’s distinct directorial style. Known for his work on Scarface and Carrie, De Palma brings his signature flair to this film. He creates a visually mesmerizing experience that few could replicate. The opening scene—a nearly 12-minute single take—does more than showcase technical skill. It pulls the audience into the chaotic world of a high-stakes boxing match. The camera swirls through the arena, weaving between characters and capturing the tension in the air. You can almost feel the sweat and energy in the room. This sequence doesn’t just set the stage; it immerses you in the film’s pulse, creating a visceral sense of involvement. De Palma sustains this tension throughout the movie, weaving multiple plot threads while keeping a relentless pace.

Nicolas Cage delivers an energetic performance as Rick Santoro, a corrupt yet charismatic detective. Cage doesn’t just play Santoro; he inhabits him. He channels the character’s bravado and charm with hypnotic intensity. Santoro struts through the casino with absurd confidence. His larger-than-life persona matches the film’s heightened reality. Yet, beneath the bluster, Cage reveals layers of desperation and twisted morality. This nuanced portrayal keeps Santoro compelling throughout the film. You can’t help but watch, even when his actions repulse you. Cage’s intensity doesn’t just fit; it elevates the entire movie, making Santoro a memorable character.

The film’s narrative structure also sets Snake Eyes apart. De Palma uses a Rashomon-style approach, where the same event—a political assassination—is revisited from multiple perspectives. Each retelling peels back new layers of the story, revealing hidden details and shifting our understanding of the characters. This technique keeps the audience engaged, involving them in the mystery. Each revelation feels like a puzzle piece falling into place. As perspectives shift, so does the viewer’s perception of the truth. This isn’t just a plot twist for surprise; it adds depth and nuance, resonating long after the credits roll.

Snake Eyes also dazzles with its set design and cinematography. The casino, the film’s primary setting, bursts with life. It’s a vibrant yet oppressive environment that mirrors the drama within its walls. The casino’s garish colors, flashing lights, and labyrinthine corridors create a sense of claustrophobia. The tension heightens as the plot tightens around the characters. De Palma uses the space masterfully, framing shots to emphasize the characters’ entrapment. The cinematography enhances this atmosphere with dynamic camera movements and close-ups. The film’s visual style isn’t just eye-catching; it’s integral to the storytelling. Every shot amplifies the suspense and sense of impending doom.

Despite its strengths, Snake Eyes didn’t receive universal acclaim upon release. Critics were divided; some praised De Palma’s direction and the film’s style. Others criticized the plot for not living up to its potential. The ending, in particular, drew ire for its perceived lack of impact. Yet, these critiques often overlook the film’s ambition and the risks it takes. It’s easy to fault a movie for not landing every punch. However, Snake Eyes deserves recognition for daring to swing for the fences. De Palma and his team took risks—some paid off spectacularly, others less so. The result is far more interesting than many safer, more polished films.

Looking back, Snake Eyes stands out as a unique entry in the crime thriller genre. Its imperfections are part of what makes it compelling. The film dares to be different, blending a flashy visual style, a complex narrative structure, and an unforgettable lead performance. Many films from that time played it safe, sticking to formulaic plots and predictable outcomes. Snake Eyes reminds us of the rewards that come with taking creative risks.

Ultimately, Snake Eyes warrants a second look, especially for those who appreciate boundary-pushing cinema. It may never be hailed as a classic, but it certainly deserves more recognition than it’s received. Whether you’re a fan of De Palma’s direction or Nicolas Cage’s acting or enjoy a thriller that challenges the norm, Snake Eyes offers a distinctive and daring cinematic experience. So, next time you’re in the mood for something off the beaten path, give Snake Eyes another chance—you might find yourself drawn into the spell of this unsung gem.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Defending the Ending

The ending of Snake Eyes has been a point of contention for many viewers and critics. Some feel it does not provide the cathartic resolution that the buildup demands. However, a defense of the ending reveals it to be consistent with the film’s overarching themes and narrative structure.

One of the primary criticisms of the ending is that it does not offer a traditional, triumphant conclusion for Rick Santoro. Instead, Santoro’s moment of redemption is followed by personal ruin—his exposure to the conspiracy leads to his downfall. This outcome, however, is more realistic and in line with the film’s thematic exploration of corruption and redemption. It underscores the idea that proper redemption comes with a price and that the path to integrity is fraught with personal sacrifice. Santoro’s fall from grace is a poignant reminder that actions have consequences, and in a world rife with corruption, doing the right thing often comes at a significant personal cost.

The ending also reinforces the film’s theme of perception versus reality. While Santoro manages to uncover the truth, the cost is high, and the resolution is far from clear-cut. The audience is left to grapple with the ambiguity of Santoro’s victory—he has done the right thing, but his life is left in shambles. This ambiguity is a deliberate choice by De Palma, reflecting the complexities of real-life justice and morality. It challenges the audience to consider the true nature of victory and whether it is always as clean and satisfying as we might hope.

Snake Eyes deliberately subverts the expectations of the crime thriller genre. Instead of providing a neat resolution, it leaves viewers unease and contemplation. This subversion is a bold move that distinguishes the film from more formulaic thrillers. By refusing to adhere to a conventional happy ending, Snake Eyes remains true to its themes and offers a more thought-provoking conclusion.

Snake Eyes is a film that delves into deep and complex themes, including corruption, the illusion of power, and the dichotomy of perception versus reality. Its ending, while controversial, is a fitting conclusion that aligns with these themes, offering a realistic and thought-provoking resolution. Brian De Palma’s direction and Nicolas Cage’s compelling performance make Snake Eyes a film that deserves to be revisited and appreciated for its ambition and nuance. The film challenges its audience to look beyond the surface and consider the more profound implications of its story, making it a genuinely unsung gem in the world of cinema.