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.

Brian De Palma is a fascinating filmmaker. His oeuvre is wild and wide ranging with films like Carrie, Blow Out (my favorite De Palma film), Scarface, Body Double, The Untouchables, Mission: Impossible, and Dressed to Kill to name a few. With the disaster that was The Bonfire of The Vanities (again, I highly encourage giving The Devil's Candy a read) De Palma rebounded in the 90s with a few really solid hits like the first Mission: Impossible movie a couple years prior to this film's release. Snake Eyes was one I never knew about and only added it to the list as it was a Nic Cage movie from the 1990s that I didn't know about until now.

In fact my interest tripled during the opening credits when I realized that this was one of De Palma's films. Snake Eyes is a conspiracy thriller surrounding a high profile boxing match in Atlantic City where a powerful politician is mysteriously shot dead during the height of the match. It just so happens that erratic Atlantic City Detective Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) was sitting front row for the killing and immediately puts himself at the forefront of the crime scene. Rick's best friend Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise) is the head of security for the Senator thus the two attempt to solve the case through their divergent methods.

What I loved about Snake Eyes was, in order, the (inventive) cinematography, the screenplay, revisiting the same scenes and events with new information or from different angles, and the tension/pacing. Obviously Nic Cage entertains here, he's not quite as insane as his Face/Off performance from the year prior, but this character is closer to his Castor Troy character than any other Nic Cage performance I have seen so far. I really dug this film, it reminded me to look further into Brian De Palma's career.

De Palma’s incredible one-take intro to Santoro and his sleazy existence shows us arounds corridors, up and down escalators down to ringside. It’s dialog-heavy, incredibly complicated in its staging and so exciting to watch.

One of Santoro’s best friends, Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise) sits alongside him on ringside seats. When a shot rings out and a powerful figure sitting near Santoro is now dead, the event erupts into anarchy.

Santoro and Dunne immediately sweep the area and round up the suspects. Who took the shot, why did they do it and is there one person responsible for the public assassination? How do you solve a murder that takes place in plain sight with “14,000 eyewitnesses?”

Because it’s De Palma, the expected Hitchcock visuals and themes are present. However, even with those aspects in place, there are more neo-noir themes on hand, as well as De Palma doing Robert Altman taking on “Rashomon.”

There’s a McGuffin about Air Guard Missile Tests but the core of the film is Santoro’s belatedly finding a moral center in a corrupt world.

De Palma is once again exploring media manipulation and distraction through large-scale diversion. It could be interpreted as political satire as just flat out American social commentary.

De Palma is dipping his toe into the “Blow Out” (1981) pool once more. “Snake Eyes” is a smaller film than De Palma’s anti-commercial, challenging tour de force of the original “Mission: Impossible” (1996) but still made with a bravado showmanship to match the work of his leading man.

“Snake Eyes” isn’t an action movie but a thrillingly staged mystery, which made it an odd attraction during the summer of 1998. Coming off of his back-to-back blockbusters of “Con Air” and “Face/Off” and the surprise hit of “City of Angels” earlier in the year, Cage was on a roll that lasted for years.

Playing Santoro, Cage is on fire from his first entrance. The character simmers down as the discoveries of the investigation become increasingly grave. Cage is not being over the top but playing a brash, inhibition-free jerk whose lack of a moral center changes drastically in a single evening.

There is no convincing naysayers who loathe any period of Cage’s work, whether it’s his early post-“Peggy Sue” choices, his commercial breakthrough after winning the Oscar, or the on-again-off-again era of wild creative peaks and valleys he’s currently in.

Cage always takes big swings and is rarely (if ever) accused of being subtle.

Nevertheless, the actor’s willingness to give nearly every project he takes on an above and beyond approach, giving it his all when the movie itself may not need or deserve it, has made him one of my favorites.

Alongside his incredible turn in Werner Herzog’s off-the-wall “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” (2009), this is my favorite of his “big” performances.

In both cases, the initial bravado of the characters masks the moral rot beneath, as both characters find a form of redemption but, in the end, haven’t entirely reformed their wicked ways.

The shot of a bloodied bill and the final, painful look Santoro gives it, says everything about the character and how far he’s come. It’s the film’s most important shot and solidifies the film’s neo-noir identity.