Responses to this message:
I remember the good old days. When dialogue was witty and snappy, when a politician's sexual life was none of my business, when a scriptwriter could end a movie. David Koepp, please take a bow. If you hadn't excelled yourself with 'Mission: Impossible', you certainly have with 'Snake Eyes'. After what I felt wasn't too bad a beginning and perhaps even middle, 'Snake Eyes' managed to go downhill from there. As we got to the 'climactic' scene where Nicholas Cage notices Sinise's shadow I wanted to run around to Koepp's residence and force him to watch an ENTIRE Alfred Hitchcock movie. The same goes with director, De Palma. In fact, come to think of it it's not just Koepp and De Palma. It seems to me that a lot of movies in the 90s have a problem with the ending. Most will now resort to either some lame, 'oh damn... we've only got 10 minutes left to finish this thing, quick kill the bad guy' ending (Dark City anyone?) or if that doesn't work, 'ah, what the hell... this movie's going to be so successful that we want a sequel so we'll leave crucial plot threads unresolved'. It's as if screenwriters have attention spans that last only an hour and 30 minutes. They get to the home stretch and they lose interest and want to make another movie. What's the use of creating suspense throughout an entire film if you're not going to capitalise on it at the end? You're only going to leave the audience feeling short changed. I guess I should have payed more attention to the title of the movie before I went in.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread