Snake Eyes is in every way a more traditional DePalma movie that first, still spectacular Tom Cruise movie was. It is all style over substance, it's got some truly virtuoso sequences and a cast of scumball characters, chief among them our 'hero' -- a hilariously gonzo Nicolas Cage.
I remember seeing the movie in theaters and being very taken with it, if a bit let down by its abrupt ending (a studio compromise, after DePalma's original more symbolic 'biblical' ending was shot down). It did pretty good at the box office, but got mixed to bad reviews (as nearly all DePalma movies do) and has since come to be viewed, alongside 2000's Mission to Mars, the beginning of DePalma's decline amid an attempt to win over more mainstream audiences.
 |
| Carla Gugino in Snake Eyes |
Even hardcore DePalma fans and defenders like me have usually considered it one of his lesser films. But for some reason, it plays really well to me now just over 20 years after its initial release. It's a breezy 90 minutes -- and it really moves. It's funny, it's stylish, it's got atmosphere and an unconventional lead performance which is -- don't get me wrong, insane -- but also wildly entertaining. At least, to me.
Snake Eyes famously opens with an incredibly ambitious single take which starts behind the scenes of a marquee heavy boxing match and then leads to the action just outside the ring. Our guide is Cage who struts like a peacock and was in the midst of a real hot streak as a bizarro A-list leading man.
In this film he is a pretty repugnant creep given to histrionics at the drop of a hat. He's the kind of guy who would lift an index finger and hold it in front of your face if you approached them during a phone call, if that makes any sense.
I've come to, especially in the wake of Mandy, better appreciate Cage's appeal as an actor. He is a risk taker, he is a provocateur but he also has control of his instrument
He is cast opposite Gary Sinise, who despite a sour expression, has a kind of old fashioned, aw shucks appeal and his more straight arrow law enforcement friend. Does the movie reveal SPOILER ALERT that he is the villain a little early for my tastes? Maybe -- but the reversal gives Sinise the opportunity to show more range and with repeat viewing his work during the single take sequence is just as impressive as Cage's, albeit more lowkey.
Once the big single take sequence is over -- it's a whodunit (a lawmaker is assassinated during the fight) which involves security cams, interrogations, and of course because it's DePalma, copious amounts of blood.
Snake Eyes' plot is not the most brilliant, nor is its pat conclusion, but DePalma is interested in giving you a purely visual experience here, one that isn't as concerned with logic or reality.
Take for instance a God's eye view of several different hotel rooms where action is playing out in each one. It's another show-off-y one-take beauty that doesn't need to be in the movie, serves no real purpose but looks incredible and is a ton of fun.
In this way, Snake Eyes is more of a sibling to 2002's Femme Fatale, a similarly ludicrous but irresistible potboiler where the camera is almost always showing you something interesting, even if that something is trashy, silly, confusing or one and the same.
This to me is the appeal of DePalma, his movies are rarely going for an emotional punch (his woefully underrated Casualties of War is a big exception here) and usually aren't looking to make some profound statement. They're just about kinetic cinematic satisfaction.
I could watch that opening take of this film, which feels like about a third of the movie, without the sound on and still be riveted by the smoothness of the moves and audacity of the imagery.
It's definitely not for everyone's tastes -- and for some -- the second half of the film is simply too much of a letdown to include it among DePalma's best, I think it's worth a re-evaluation after all this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment