You ever watch an old movie and get that weird, prickly feeling on the back of your neck? Like you’re seeing something you weren't supposed to see until years later? That is exactly what’s happening right now with the 1998 Nicolas Cage thriller Snake Eyes. If you’ve been anywhere near the internet lately, you’ve probably seen the name Charles Kirkland popping up alongside Cage’s face.
It’s a rabbit hole. Honestly, it’s one of those things where the more you look, the weirder it gets.
People are obsessed with the idea that this nearly 30-year-old movie somehow "predicted" the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in 2025. It sounds like something out of a late-night creepypasta, but the details are specific enough that even the skeptics are doing double-takes. We’re talking names, dates, and even the specific nature of the injuries.
The Charles Kirkland Connection: Fact vs. Fiction
In the movie Snake Eyes, directed by Brian De Palma, Nicolas Cage plays Rick Santoro. He’s this loud, flashy Atlantic City detective who wears a tan suit that’s honestly offensive to the eyes. He’s at a massive boxing match at the Atlantic City Arena when the unthinkable happens.
The U.S. Secretary of Defense is assassinated.
The character’s name? Charles Kirkland.
Now, this is where it starts getting spooky for people. In the film, Secretary Kirkland is shot in the neck while sitting ringside. When Charlie Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025, during an event at Utah Valley University, the reports confirmed he was also struck in the neck. That’s a pretty specific bullseye for a "coincidence."
🔗 Read more: Jack Blocker American Idol Journey: What Most People Get Wrong
The "September 10" Controversy
If you look at the viral TikToks and Reddit threads, everyone claims the movie takes place on September 10. That would be a perfect match for the date Kirk was shot.
But wait.
Is it actually in the movie? If you pause the film and look at the background signage—specifically the fight posters for the Tyler vs. Ruiz match—some frames show "Sept 19" while others are just blurry enough to look like a "10." Most film historians and eagle-eyed fans on 4chan and Reddit have debated this for months. Screen Rant recently pointed out that while the "September 10" claim fueled the fire, the internal logic of the movie’s production often points toward the 19th. Still, the fact that the date is even in the ballpark has sent the "predictive programming" crowd into a total frenzy.
The Names That Keep Popping Up
It isn't just about the victim’s name. It's the whole cast of characters.
- The Shooter: In Snake Eyes, the boxer who takes a "dive" to create the distraction for the assassination is named Lincoln Tyler. He’s played by Stan Shaw.
- The Real Life Suspect: The man charged with the murder of Charlie Kirk is a 22-year-old named Tyler Robinson.
Basically, you have a "Tyler" involved in the plot in both the cinematic version and the tragic real-life event. Then there’s the setting. Much of Snake Eyes was filmed at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. The movie features a billionaire character named Gilbert Powell who feels like a very thinly veiled version of a young Donald Trump.
Given Kirk's massive role in the MAGA movement, the "Trump-adjacent" setting of the movie adds another layer of weirdness for the conspiracy theorists. They see it as a map. A blueprint.
💡 You might also like: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
Is Snake Eyes Actually a Good Movie?
Moving away from the "prophecy" stuff for a second—is the movie actually worth watching?
Kinda.
It’s peak Brian De Palma. The opening shot is legendary. It’s a massive, 13-minute Steadicam sequence that follows Nic Cage through the bowels of the arena, into the ring, and all the way to the moment the shots are fired. It’s breathless. It’s exhausting. It shows Cage at his most "Cagey"—screaming, sweating, and being generally chaotic.
But the script? It’s a bit of a mess.
The movie was originally supposed to have this insane ending involving a literal tidal wave hitting Atlantic City. They actually filmed it. You can still see snippets of water in the final cut, but the studio got cold feet and made them reshoot a more "grounded" finale. It’s one of those "what if" moments in cinema history. If they’d kept the tidal wave, maybe people wouldn’t be so focused on the Charles Kirkland character today because they’d be too busy talking about the CGI water.
Why This is Trending Now (E-E-A-T Analysis)
The reason Snake Eyes surged to the top of the streaming charts on Paramount+ last October wasn't because of a sudden appreciation for 90s noir. It was purely driven by social media sleuths.
📖 Related: Why October London Make Me Wanna Is the Soul Revival We Actually Needed
Expert film critics, like those at Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, have noted that "predictive programming" theories usually crop up after major political traumas. It’s a way for people to find order in chaos. If a movie "predicted" it, then it wasn't a random act of violence—it was part of a script.
The reality is likely much simpler:
- Charles Kirkland is a generic-sounding "official" name.
- Tyler is one of the most common names for men born in the late 90s and early 2000s.
- September is a prime month for both movie releases and political events.
What You Should Do Next
If you’re curious about the nicolas cage movie charles kirkland connection, the best thing to do is actually watch the film with a critical eye. Don't just take the word of a 15-second clip with spooky music over it.
- Watch the opening 20 minutes. It’s a masterclass in directing, regardless of what you believe about the "predictions."
- Check the dates. Look at the posters in the background of the arena scenes. See if you see a 10 or a 19.
- Research the production. Read up on David Koepp’s screenplay. He’s the same guy who wrote Jurassic Park and Mission: Impossible. He’s known for tight, high-stakes thrillers, not occult prophecies.
Ultimately, Snake Eyes remains a fascinating piece of 90s kitsch that has been dragged back into the spotlight by a very modern kind of digital folklore. Whether you see it as a spooky coincidence or just a director playing with the tropes of political power, it’s a wild ride.
To get the full picture, look for the "original ending" footage on YouTube. It explains a lot of the weird pacing issues in the final act and shows just how much the movie changed from its first conception to the version that’s haunting the internet today.