IMDb user comments for
Snake Eyes (1998) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

210 comments in total

---

33 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
The Eye That Lies, 14 November 2000
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

This is a wonderful experience. Never mind that the acting is poor and the story weak --that was never the point. This film was made because DePalma knows how to make his camera dance and wanted to make a film based on that notion.

A central question in most art concerns the role of the viewer. This dominated easel painting, then was the center of evolution of the novel and now sits at the core of thought about film. Is the viewer an omniscient God, or can the viewer be fooled like a person? Is the viewer a passive observer, or does she `walk' with the participants as an invisible character? So many clever questions.

DePalma thinks the camera is a whole new thing, The camera is a type of character, part narrator, part actor, part god. It can lie, be fooled, search curiously, document, play jokes. So this is a film about the camera's eyes. `Snake' both because the camera can snake around following Cage, going places that Cage cannot, but also `snake' because the camera sees with forked tongue.

So we have one seemingly continuous shot of the key scene, which is played first from Cage's perspective, then the fighter's, the Navy guy, the Girl, then the cop again, and finally the `flying eye.' Along the way, every eye trick DePalma can think of is woven in:

--The girl's glasses are crushed so she sees less than the audience

--The whole mess is about what a satellite sees

--The casino has 1000 cameras which our own eyes coopt

--The thing is framed by the TV eye

--God-like, we scan over several hotel rooms while Cage and Sinese are stuck in the hallway maze

--Splitscreen simultaneity

--The whole thing is in real time, as if you were living in the action

This is masterfully intellectual. See it. Forget the story.

---

20 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Snake eyes - a fast and fun, thriller!, 3 October 2005

Author: HenryJK from United Kingdom

'Snake eyes' is a film, which in my opinion has always been extremely underrated. Perhaps it was the expectation associated with De Palma, after all this movie followed 'Carlito's way' and 'Mission Impossible',two fantastic films. Some might see this film as a disappointment but i think 'Snake Eyes' contains some of De Palma's best work.

The film is essentially a thriller with the story revolving around Rick Santoro. Rick is a crooked cop who finds himself sucked into a conspiracy when attending a boxing match. Soon Rick finds himself entangled in an investigation which will test his conscience and his loyalty. The story is an aspect of the film which has been criticised most. I think the in-closed setting of a casino provides a great environment for the thriller. The excitement and bustle of the casino gives the story a quick pace and makes the opening scenes very busy instantly drawing the audience in. I think a thriller lives of intrigue and 'Snake Eyes' does provide mystery at the beginning but it is from here that the film suffers. The film lacks the twists and turns that keep the audience on the edge of their seat. Likewise the end, although not bad in general suffers from a lack surprise. It feels rather flat and predictable.

The main character, Santaro is a hero who seems perfect in the environment of Las Vegas. Nicholas Cage gives a very Cage-esquire performance with plenty of charm and humour. Although Santaro is self centred you cant help but like him and it is this charm which helps the story. Gary Sinise also puts in good performance playing the straight army guy to his usual high standard.

However it is De Palma's camera work which really excites in this otherwise average film. His use of point of view shots is particularly impressive. We see a lot of the story from character's view, this creates an involving feel meaning you can detect where character's stories overlap. The opening fight is shot very well also, instead of just seeing the fighters slug it out, you are shown the fans reactions. This means you feel the excitement of the fight but also see the plot develop. Later in a flashback we see the fighters in the ring showing the events from their perspective. From this comes new plot developments unseen before and it is this holding back of information which makes the film interesting. There are other cool uses of the camera such as when a birds eye view is used to show the different Hotel rooms. This sequence really creates atmosphere which 'Snake Eyes' thrives on.

Overall the film isn't the smartest thriller in the world. it isn't going to have you scratching your head all night. I think this is quite refreshing though. Many thrillers are hard to follow and often dull. 'Snake Eyes' provides a fast entertaining story which allows the audience to relax and enjoy the film. Watch this film with an easy going mind and you could find yourself really enjoying the film. De Palma's camera work makes this film worth watching by itself. 'Snake Eyes' is a cool thriller which although flawed has a certain charm, hope you feel the same way.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
A Three Ring Circus of a Movie- I Loved It!, 20 August 1998
Author: bababear from BRYAN, TX

Overblown, overdirected, overacted: that's why I always enjoy DePalma's movies. He made the statement that the camera lies 24 times a second, and SNAKE EYES plays on that theme.

De Palma's camera is constantly in motion, roaming through the arena, casino , and hotel as if it had a life of its own. At the beginning of the film we watch Nick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) as he swims through the sewer (his words) that is the Atlantic City casino world. He tells us, "This isn't a beach town. It's a sewer. It's my sewer, I am the king."

It's literally a dark and stormy night. A hurricane (a tv reporter is pressured to refer to it as a 'tropical depression' on the air) is coming ashore, and 14,000 people are gathered at a casino complex to watch a prizefight.

There's a shooting during the fight, and Cage orders the exits sealed; who would go outside into a hurricane remains a mystery, but anyhow. There are two mysterious women involved in the incident, and as time passes he realizes that there were lots of people involved, possibly even his longtime friend Navy Commander Dunne (Gary Sinese) who is as straight-arrow as Cage's character is sleazy.

By the end of the story Cage is working toward redemption- even though during the early part of the film it's made clear that he sees everything as having a price.

There's one point where he is offered a million dollars to reveal where one of the women (she knows a lot- too much- about a defense contract, and was talking to the Secretary of Defense when he was shot) is hiding. And there 's a very real chance that he might give in, or be unable to protect her when the danger gets intense.

Men in De Palma's films have a way of failing to come through for women in critical situations. An executive couldn't save his wife in OBSESSION. A young actor couldn't protect a mysterious, beautiful woman in BODY DOUBLE. The nicest guy in school couldn't keep the outcast/prom queen CARRIE from humiliation and its awful consequences. In the superb BLOW OUT a movie soundman rescues a young woman from a sinking car early in the story, but is too late to save her from a madman at the film's conclusion.

So there is no guarantee of a happy ending. Self doubt weighs heavily in De Palma's films, and often people's best efforts are to no avail.

Admittedly David Koepp and De Palma's script is something of a problem. There's a complex conspiracy underfoot, and conspiracies are low on my list of compelling things- I got burned out on them in the seventies.

Far more compelling is the great fun that Cage has with his character. Boy, does he get to chew scenery here. Constantly in motion, talking on his cell phone (even during a hurricane; some of my friends can't use theirs when a cloud passes over the sun), interacting with the low life characters around the casino.

And, oh, does DePalma have fun with the whole thing. Of course, nothing is what it seems to be. He retells the action from the viewpoint of this or that character: we sometimes literally see what happened through that character's eyes. An important setpiece in which we finally see what really happened in clear perspective uses split screen imagery- and in the theatre where we saw SNAKE EYES the use of stereo sound was an integral part of the seperation of images.

For all the bravado of his performance, I was impressed with Cage's ability and willingness to share the screen with other actors. In some of the retellings he is a supporting character or featured extra, and as an actor he's more than willing to let our attention shift to someone else. A lesser actor might have been afraid of that shift of focus. Way to go, Nicolas. That's a real sign of maturity as an actor.

So did I buy into De Palma's bag of tricks? Yup, 100%. It's nice to see a movie that isn't afraid of the old razzle-dazzle. I do appreciate subtlety and complex ideas- that's why I'm a voracious reader. I really don't think I'd enjoy De Palma directing an adaptation of a Jane Austen novel or REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST. The Merchant- Ivory people do that sort of thing so nicely. But it was nice to sit back for an hour and a half and let a master showman use illusion to fool us and let our eyes fool our brains.

On a five scale, Pops gives it four slot machines.

---

12 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
No Dice, 17 September 2004

Author: Tom Clarke (tjcclarke@hotmail.com) from http://www.amateurscribe.webeden.co.uk

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I'm a sucker for the steady-cam. Scorsese's famous entry-to-the-nightclub scene in Goodfellas that was so perfectly aped by Jon Favreau and co. in the wonderful Swingers is probably still the daddy, but the shot that glides around Mark Wahlberg to the sultry strains of 'Best of my Love' in Boogie Nights runs it pretty close. For sheer audacity though, you need look no further than the opening section of Brian De Palma's Snake Eyes.

I own a thesaurus and am fairly adept at the old 'Shift+F7' trick, but this scene left me clutching thin air for superlatives. The beauty is, it comes from nothing. The film opens up on ground that is not so much well trodden as mercilessly stamped upon: A local news reporter helpfully sets the scene for all her faithful viewers and of course, for all of us too.

But from the moment she hands over to her colleague inside an Atlantic City casino, banality is banished. What follows is a mesmerising, one-take, directorial tour de force. It is fight night and we follow bent copper Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) as he swaggers around making shady deals and collaring nefarious snitches for bribes and pay-offs. He checks in on heavyweight boxer Lincoln Tyler (Stan Shaw) who is preparing for the feature bout and then goes in to the arena. There he meets up with old chum Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise) who is head of security for the evening and settles down for the action.

The fight doesn't last long. Tyler is caught by a massive haymaker in the first round and windmills backwards. At the same time a sniper high in the rafters takes aim and assassinates the US Defence Secretary who is seated just behind Santoro. Chaos ensues and the curtain closes on the first act with the camera swirling upwards at the end of its long journey. Unbelievably fifteen minutes have passed by the time De Palma shouts cut.

Impressive stuff. Indeed, De Palma seems so pleased with the shot that he decides to hang the whole movie on it, revisiting events from different perspectives using flashback and CCTV footage as Santoro tries to piece together what has happened.

Sadly, from such high, heady beginnings, Snake Eyes has a long way to fall. And fall it does. Spectacularly. Nose-dives would be a better assessment.

Cage does his best, rolling out both familiar personas: the extravagant clown and the intense, introspective everyman, but he can't fight his way through a clunker of a plot.

Conspiracy-wise, I don't suppose it would be an outrageous spoiler for me to mention that Dunne is up to his neck in it. If you want to shroud your movie in ambiguity, you are probably better off not casting Gary Sinise as the villain of the piece. Let's face it: he's no Jimmy Stewart. Sinise must be one of the shiftiest looking men on the planet – the furrowed brow, those furtive eyes - the military uniform simply tops off the caricature of a disillusioned ex-soldier with a chip on his shoulder. I wouldn't buy a used car from him, let alone put him in charge of security of an event attended by a major dignitary.

The acting is not bad, the cinematography remains slick and glossy throughout – even the direction is solid and unpretentious – but the lesson here is that nothing will work if you don't have a story. This is insipid nonsense that meanders along pointlessly and then confusingly and abruptly just ends. There is no steady build up of tension and no devious twist. Instead we have a bizarre and strangely out of place postscript which is probably an attempt to cleverly keep the camera rolling beyond the standard good triumphing over evil, lovers clinch, stretch out into widescreen and roll credits finale that closes most action flicks.

It backfires spectacularly. Rather than being innovative and bittersweet, the last scene is irritating and mildly deflating. Action heroes are meant to be flawed, we don't want to watch them screwing up their lives, we know they are gamblers and alcoholics. I would rather see them save the day, kiss the girl and I'll take the rest on faith thank you very much.

6/10

---

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
I Like This.....Which Surprises Me, 20 November 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

Most people didn't like this movie, from what I have heard and read over the years. Some of my friends who saw it didn't like it either. For some reason, I did, and that was despite a few things I normally don't put up with (too much usages of the Lord's name in vain and the usual anti-military agenda.)

However, I found this a very fast-moving, involving story with Nicholas Cage playing an extremely interesting person: "Rick Santoro," a guy who acts like a complete crazy man at the beginning but slowly gets it together as the film goes on. Gary Sinise plays his normal corrupt role (this was before his CSI: New York days) and Carla Gugino was very easy on my eyes.

Brian DePalma directed this, so you know it's going to be stylishly shot, too. This looks very good on DVD.

All the characters are interesting, actually. One complaint I agree with: the ending was a bit weak and detracts from the story. It's a rough film but edgy and interesting. Don't be discouraged reading a lot of negative reviews about this. It's good entertainment.

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Good potential, terrible writing, 10 July 2004

Author: drjnfever from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie caught my attention on cable as I was flipping channels. The mystery and the setup were great. The placement of suspicious events was great. At one point, I even commented to myself, "this is a good f---in' movie!" Boy was I wrong.

As the story unfolded, you wish it didn't. It's a good movie before you find out what's going on. Then the plot holes, cheesy dialogue, outrageously contrived situations, and just plain comical story progression spread like wildfire. It's almost as if someone came up with a great story idea and then left it in the hands of a high school scriptwriting hobbyist.

The investigation of the murder of the US Defense Secretary in front of 14,000 witnesses is left up to one city cop and one military security officer who are best friends? People are running around a casino and being able to stay hidden? I better stop there because if I start listing plot holes and stupid scenarios, we'll never get out of here. I'm trying really hard not to comment on the end. It's like whoever was writing the script got tired of writing and just threw something together so he could rest his fingers and get paid.

However, if you can not focus on the bad writing (kinda like not focusing on a speeding train heading towards you), the style of the film is quite interesting. I liked how the story (terrible as it was) unfolded through the different angles and points of view of different people. The timing and placement of action were executed well.

It's too bad that a movie has to rely on something as minor as a script in order to be good.

-----SPOILER-----

I like Gary Sinise. He's a good actor. But unfortunately, he's usually typecast as a bad guy, so I kinda suspected he was involved all along.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
A typically idiotic De Palma thriller; switch off your brains., 6 January 2007

Author: fedor8 (fedor8@yahoo.com) from Serbia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Another absurd De Palma thriller, but not as annoying as many of his other ones. The dialog and even the acting are occasionally sub-par or a touch laughable (e.g. Cage talking to the boxer, Sinise revealing himself to Cage, etc.) and the conspiracy plot is rather dumb and far-fetched (but this has become standard practice in (modern) thrillers). There is some typical depalmanesque nonsense; for example, the woman gets shot in the arm but neither bleeds heavily, nor feels that much pain, nor does she get treated, nor is the wound a hindrance - summa summarum: the bullet entering her body at hundreds of km/s was merely a minor inconvenience, that's all. Cage's angry reaction to the woman accusing his pal of treason is also very silly and quite baffling. It was very predictable very early on that Sinise was involved in the conspiracy, and that he would kill himself when he got cornered. And what's with that ending? Cage becomes a hero. Fine. But then the plot goes one step further into the future and there are corruption allegations against him; who cares? This has nothing to do with the main plot, so why have it in the movie? And how about that very last scene, when the credits roll: we see workers at a construction site. Why?

The movie is watchable and isn't dull or too annoying (all things considered), but it's just another brainless thriller.

If anyone has "snake eyes" it's Sinise. Apart from looking alien, this guy is one of the worst actors in recent decades.

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Brian De Palma, Nicolas Cage, and Gary Sinise are in top form. The script is not., 7 March 2001
Author: jiangliqings

** 1/2 out of ****

For nearly 80 minutes Snake Eyes is fascinating entertainment. Not only is the storyline engrossing, but the camerawork is truly brilliant and the behind-the-scenes look of a boxing match is compelling. Add to this two of Hollywood's most talented actors in Nicolas Cage and Gary Sinise and you'd expect an edge-of-the-seat, fast-paced, plot-twisting thriller. Well, for the most part the film works, but unfortunately bogs down with quite a bad ending.

The film takes place during a boxing match in Atlantic City, which is currently hounded by a raging tropical storm. Detective Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) is there to place some bets and watch the game with his best friend, Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise), the same man who is also guarding the Secretary of Defense.

However, something goes wrong, Dunne is taken off position by a red-haired woman, and the Secretary is shot by an assailant. Dunne, in turn, manages to take down the assassin, but an another crisis occurs when all the spectators try to leave. They're locked in, thus holding 14,000 eyewitnesses inside while Santoro tries to figure out what's truly going on with the help of a mysterious young woman (Carla Gugino).

I've always been a fan of Brian De Palma and his films. His movies are never truly perfect masterpieces (then again, not much is), but this director can make anything seem interesting, even if only in a visual sense. With Snake Eyes, the accomplished director has created his most visually edgy and dazzling film to date, with camerawork that would stun even the most hardened De Palma fan. So much goes on here, to the point where it's exhilarating. The split-screens, first-person POVs, long-tracking shots (thus, the famous 12-minute non-stop opening), aerial views, etc. all make for an enthralling experience, all the more heightened if you're not familiar with De Palma's works.

I remember the previews and commercials to this film, and they gave the film the look of a terrific thriller with a dynamic script. It doesn't quite happen like that. There aren't particularly any plot twists (unless you count that whole "phantom punch" but that was given away in the previews) and the identity of the villain is laughably obvious. The worst thing is, the revelation behind the reasons for the shooting don't create much of a sense of paranoia, which was prevalent in another De Palma thriller, Blow Out. Here, the motive is just a standard-issue conspiracy theory. But the worst is saved for last: the ending, which is De Palma's most disappointing to date. I'd rather not say what happens, other than the fact that the weather gets a little too involved.

By this point, I seem to hold the film mostly in negative regard, but like I stated, the direction is breathtaking. In addition, the performances are often terrific. The standouts are, of course, Nicolas Cage and Gary Sinise. Cage creates an entertaining character in Rick Santoro, one who initially starts off as a wild maverick but settles down to a more calm and composed person. Sinise is equally superb as his best friend, Dunne. Though this film did put him in danger of typecasting, he did play an entirely different sort of character in Brian De Palma's most recent film, Mission to Mars. The supporting cast is solid, with Carla Gugino getting the most substantial screentime of the other performers. She's decent, but is given little to work with.

Obviously, Snake Eye's best moments are when De Palma gets to strut his stuff, and he does manage to put in some suspense, though not to the best of his abilities. I mean, this is the man who crafted the train station shootout in The Untouchables, the bullet train finale in Mission: Impossible, the chainsaw scene and the bloody finale of Scarface, and the spacewalk in Mission to Mars. Here, we get a chase as Cage's character and the villain are after Gugino without the other knowing there's actually a pursuit. It's a mildly clever sequence, but never seems quite as tense as it should be.

I suppose in terms of entertainment value, Snake Eyes does get the job done, but it feels too shallow and superficial to be wholly satisfying. Had the ending matched the previous material, this would have been grand entertainment. What we get is still often first-rate, but is also slightly disappointing.

---

10 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Unlikable main character and all-too-obvious bad guy, 24 March 2003

Author: duce122 from United States

Snake Eyes (1998) D: Brian De Palma. Nicolas Cage, Gary Sinise, John Heard, Carla Gugino, Stan Shaw, Kevin Dunn, Michael Rispoli, Luis Guzman. Acceptable action film places Cage as a loud-mouthed, hot shot police officer who, along with 14,000 screaming fans, witnesses the murder of the U.S. secretary of defense while attending a boxing match. Of course, there is a conspiracy which he uncovers in 98 minutes. First film I have ever seen where I knew who the bad guy was just by viewing the opening credits. This `twist' is revealed halfway through the film, so by the end, it's hard to imagine why the audience would even care. In addition, Cage plays one of the most unlikable main characters in recent memory. On the plus side, the Hitchcock-esque unbroken opening shot is a great touch. Unfortunately the rest of the film is drab. RATING: 5 out of 10. Rated R for violence and profanity.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Savour the camera, 16 August 2008
Author: tieman64 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Police detective Rick Santoro (Nick Cage) attends a championship boxing match. Also there is his good friend, Navy Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise). Dunne is in charge of a security detail tasked with protecting Charles Kirkland, the US Secretary of Defence. During the boxing match a bullet hits and kills Kirkland. What follows is a real-time mystery in which Santoro and Dunne seal off the boxing arena and work together to find the criminals. As the film progresses, Santoro gradually comes to realise that there's a conspiracy behind the assassination and that his best friend (Dunne) is involved. Santoro, an unscrupulous cop with a history of taking bribes, is thus faced with a choice: accept a million dollar payoff to keep his mouth shut, or arrest his friend.

Stanley Kubrick once observed that "most films don't have any purpose other than to mechanically figure out what people want and to construct some artificial form of entertainment for them." People seek the familiar in films. Whether it be a familiar genre, actors, or a specific kind of emotional gratification, films have become delivery systems for the feelings that people crave. You can't expect, therefore, to do any serious damage to anybody's way of thinking by using such familiar devices.

On paper, "Snake Eyes" is a conventional thriller, but on screen De Palma has sculpted the film to suit his own private concerns. Like Welles' "Touch of Evil", this is a film in love with space and shifting points of view. The script serves only as a framework for De Palma to indulge in his fetish like obsession with seeing, subjectivity and the fallibility of images.

"Snake Eyes" begins with a shot of a globe shaped statue. The camera then pans downward and focuses on a news reporter, drenched in rain, as she struggles to remember her lines. The reporter speaks for several minutes until she makes a tiny mistake. The director then orders her to restart and repeat her lines. As she does so, the camera pulls back to reveal a bank of television monitors. One monitor has Santoro jokingly addressing the camera. What follows is a 13 minute single take in which De Palma gives us a tour of a boxing arena, familiarises us with its layout, and introduces us to the film's key players.

The film spells out its concerns with this very first shot. The reporter's monologue serves as a precursor to the elaborate long-take that follows. One slip up and everything has to be restarted and re-staged. The film is a technical exercise, a juggling match, framed (begining and end) by the TV image. The globe and the thunder storm will appear in the film's finale and Cage himself is introduced as a larger than life character designed to command the camera.

Much of the rest of the movie revisits this 13 minutes single-take from the perspective of different characters and cameras, none of which can be trusted. Like most De Palma films, "Snake Eyes" is concerned with the dishonesty of the image. His camera is a snake, constantly prowling, searching, scheming and lying. One sequence, which recalls Jack Terry's patient rewind-and-play in "Blow Out", has Santoro watching a boxing KO from varying angles, as he tries to come to some measure of truth. Like Antonioni's "Blow Up", the film overwhelms us with it's sheer number of cameras, points of views and visual trickery. A person can lie. A camera can lie. But a hundred cameras will add up to the truth more surely than a hundred fallible eyewitness accounts.

The first 70 minutes of "Snake Eyes" is crammed with bravura set pieces, imaginative spectacle and brilliant camera work. The real star here is De Palma's camera, which prowls the arena with relish. During the film's final ten minutes, however, the film loses steam. There's no climax. The characters simply face off in a locked room.

But this ending was never intended. The fact is, like Orson Welles, much of De Palma's filmography has been tampered by studio interference. "Obsession" had it's paedophillic sub-story removed by composer Bernaard Herman, Tom Cruise had all the romance and sex scenes cut out of "Mission Impossible", "Black Dahlia" lost over 40 minutes of footage, "Mission to Mars" was subject to budget cuts which resulted in an abrupt last act and "Bonfire" was so rife with confusion that a book was written (The Devil's Candy) detailing De Palma's troubles with the meddling studios. "Get to know you rabbit" and "Redacted" would face similar problems.

The original ending of "Snake Eyes" tied into the first shot, and included a massive action/CGI sequence involving the globe and hurricane. This sequence was similar in tone to the end of "Femme Fatale", in which noir fate comes crashing down. But the studio's chickened out and a cheaper ending was quickly tacked on.

Because De Palma does not traditionally tackle what we think of as "major themes" his work is far too often dismissed or ignored. Like Hitchcock, who was likewise ignored until "Cahiers du Cinemahe" wrote several pioneering articles, De Palma only seems to be respected or treated seriously by French critics.

9/10 - Spielberg and Fincher would later hire screenwriter David Koepp for "War of the Worlds" and "Panic Room", two films likewise preoccupied with cameras and space (Spielberg even includes a literal snake eye alien camera). Like "Snake Eyes", both these films are unfairly criticised for weak last acts. Alfonso Cuaron would cite "Snake Eyes" as an influence on "Children of Men" and De Palma's overhead "God's eye" tracking shot would be "borrowed" by Spielberg in "Minority Report".

De Palma's ending is also interesting. We've never seen a movie that goes way past the happy ending. Rather than being redeemed, Santoro becomes a hero, only to be promptly brought up on corruption charges. In De Palma's world, past sins are never forgotten.

---

---

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history