The “lame” Nicolas Cage movie Roger Ebert hated with a passion: “It’s the worst kind of bad film”
Nicolas Cage has been in some goddamn great movies, like Raising Arizona and Moonstruck. He has also been in some absolutely terrible ones. Really terrible ones. That remake of The Wicker Man should never be forgotten for the cinematic crime that it committed.
The varied success rate of Cage’s career choices, paired with his declaration that he is a thespian, not an actor, makes him one of the most unique people to have ever emerged from Hollywood’s star system. Yet, it’s figures like Cage – so unpredictable in his choices that you never know if his next film will be an Oscar winner or a direct-to DVD flop – who keep themselves in the public eye. You can’t forget someone like Cage.
Sometimes, Cage delivers a good performance in a bad flick, suggesting that he might need a new agent (or to read scripts more closely before he agrees to them). In 1998, he delivered a performance that legendary film critic Roger Ebert called “wonderful”, although the movie itself he wasn’t so keen on, calling it a “downhill slog”.
You see, Cage surely thought that this project was going to turn out a success. It was directed by acclaimed filmmaker Brian De Palma of Scarface and Mission: Impossible fame, with a screenplay penned by David Koepp, responsible for Jurassic Park, but it didn’t quite hit the mark. I’m talking about Snake Eyes, of course, which Ebert awarded a measly one star to.
The film also featured Gary Sinise and Carla Gugino, with Cage playing a detective who witnesses an assassination at a boxing match, leading him to try and uncover some horrifying conspiracies.
The thing that disappointed Ebert most was the fact that the movie actually started out really good. De Palma is known for his attention-grabbing opening scenes (who can forget the opening of Carrie, when Sissy Spacek’s protagonist gets her period?), but with Snake Eyes, he quickly let this fall to the wayside, resulting in a movie that Ebert found “improbable”, topped with some “lame dialogue”.
He opened his review scathingly, writing: “If Brian De Palma were as good at rewriting as he is at visual style, Snake Eyes might have been a heck of a movie. He isn’t, and it isn’t. It’s the worst kind of bad film: the kind that gets you all worked up and then lets you down, instead of just being lousy from the first shot.”
Ebert did say some kind words, “Now about that first shot. It’s wonderful,” but he was a tough man to impress. “Alas, slowly at first and then with stunning rapidity, the movie falls apart.”
Snake Eyes actually grossed over $100million at the box office, but it’s not exactly an enduring masterpiece from either Cage or De Palma. Ebert’s review ended without serving Koepp or De Palma any mercy, with the writer asking, “What happened while he was writing this one? I would genuinely be curious to know how a professional screenwriter and an important director could both agree that Snake Eyes has a last act they’re willing to sign their names to.”
