Sydney

Most people didn't catch this movie when it was released (in the cinema or on video), but did discover Paul Thomas Anderson's work with the phenomenal "Boogie Nights." Make no mistake: this film is every bit as good, perhaps better, than "Boogie." It's a small film whereas "Boogie" is a huge film, but it's packed with outstanding performances (many from actors and actresses who would go on to appear in "Boogie"), a great script (and a tighter story than "Boogie"), and the same fantastic direction. Everyone who loved "Boogie," and even those who didn't, should go back and rent this film. A very stylish, moody drama/mystery.

'Hard Eight' may not be one of Paul Thomas Anderson's best, his later films being more complex and more refined, but even when Anderson was not at his best he was much better than most directors in that position.

For a feature film debut, 'Hard Eight' is still very promising. It does have moments of lethargic moments, the odd clunkiness and the ending is somewhat anti-climactic, but the potential seen throughout the film is enormous and from the start it is obvious that 'Hard Eight' knows its own strengths and makes the most out of them.

It looks impeccable, even when not very experienced in directing at this particular point Anderson's distinctive style is evident here with the long takes and tracking shots that suggest a Martin Scorsese influence. It's a beautifully shot film, and even if not as refined as his later films Anderson shows great promise as a director, showing a knack for visual style and excellent direction of actors. The music is suitably atmospheric, sometimes quirky, sometimes ominous and sometimes elegant.

Much of the script is very naturalistic and remarkably feels like the characters are talking like real people. It's tautly structured and thought-provoking too. 'Hard Eight' is a film quite light on plot, but rich in characterisation, not a bad thing considering that it is essentially a character study. The storytelling is still quite nicely done though, and while the characters are not the easiest to like there is a compelling realism about them and they're interesting.

Phillip Baker-Hall is magnetic in the lead role, in a performance of towering sincerity, while John C. Reilly matches him very well with an appealing gawky charm, Gwyneth Paltrow is charming and moving and Samuel L. Jackson brings plenty of flesh and succeeds in making the character too much of a retread of previous characters. Philip Seymour Hoffmann makes a very entertaining if somewhat too brief appearance.

Overall, very promising debut from Anderson though he went on to even better things with meatier material and an even more refined style. As is evident from the superb 'Boogie Nights'. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Sydney is an old gambler who shows kindness to a man he meets outside a diner. He helps out John by lending him £50 and then teaching him enough about gambling to make his way. Two years later finds John loyally sticking with John and adoring him. However, their relationship is put under pressure when John hooks up with Clementine, a cocktail waitress who also turns tricks and Jimmy, a low life with no respect for Sydney.

Although it was pretty badly treated in the UK and mostly ignored and overlooked, the success of Anderson's films since has given many a reason to look back on Hard Eight (the much better but less meaningful title given it for the UK release) and `discover' it. It certainly is an impressive film and it is difficult to see why it received neither financial or critic success when it was released. The plot is deceptive - starting as a character piece, changing violently with a series of twists and then reverting back to the character piece we started with.

The film is totally driven by it's characters and they are very well written to the point that we care about them even before we really know all about them. The title `Sydney' is more meaningful simply because the film is pretty much all about Sydney himself. He is a kind man and we wonder why but are gradually won over his gentle nature. This makes the second half of the film more thrilling simply because we think we know Sydney but then he has to do things we think are not in him. Anderson directs with a remarkable assurance; he has style and a real sense of framing. He mixes close ups with wider shots using the fluorescent lighting of the gambling joints to good effect - his direction is as good here as it was in his other, more acclaimed films.

The main thing that makes this film so good though, is the cast. Hall is excellent; I cannot stress how good he is here - his character is well written but it is Hall that makes it work so well with a performance that is subtle and controlled. Reilly is a great character actor and he does the same here with a hangdog expression and put upon attitude. Paltrow is very good for someone whom people seem to have forgotten can actually act. Her Clementine is more complex that first appears. However despite her good work, I think that Paltrow's limited screen time actually helps the film - she is not the focus here. Jackson is his usual cool self and turns in a memorable performance while Anderson even has a part for Hoffman.

I can imagine some people will not like this film: it is talky for long sections and it ends with questions to be answered - this may frustrate some people but for me I felt it allowed me to think for myself and use what I had learnt about Sydney. This is a surprisingly mature film from such a young director and one that you owe it to yourself to undercover in retrospect.

Philip Baker Hall's Sidney kept me riveted from the first scene to the last. He play the mesmerizing, enigmatic title character with rare mastery and grace. The supporting characters are no slouches either. John C. Reilly is marvelous as Sidney's sweet, if somewhat slow witted protege. Samuel Jackson could have easily coasted on this one, simply repeating a performance from any of a number of previous tough guy types. Instead he creates an entirely new character, one with a reptilian quality not seen in his usual thugs. Even Gwenyth Paltrow is unusually strong as Clem, the waitress who wants it understood that, even if she sometimes sleeps with men for money, she is definitely NOT a prostitute.

I've been a fan of PT Anderson for a while now, and this film gave me new insight into why it is I like him so much. Anderson is that great rarity in modern filmmaking, an actor's director. He gathers terrific actors and inspires them to career-topping performances. There's no fiendishly complex plot here, no nailbiting suspense, no big payoff at the end. Just marvelous actors making the most of an excellent script.

I adore and respect the opening scene. All stories need to start somewhere, and this one started with style, in a setting that most of us have frequented...a Denny's Restaurant basically.

Throughout the film, we are made acutely aware of the precious value of food, a bed, coffee, cigarettes, cable movies, and companionship, for someone who has been deprived these things before. Most of us probably take them for granted,unless we have been down-and-out like one of the film's protagonists.

But think about how relieved you feel on a long road trip, when you stop at a motel, and partake of these things, after being trapped in your car for hours. They satiate us and bring a sense of domestic tranquility.

I needed more character development. Sorry, to those who loved this film. I get the fact that it was a portrayal of "outsider" life and the casino-bubble, but I still needed to know a bit more about how these people became who they are. The plot device of not knowing why the hell Hall is being a caretaker, worked for a while, but eventually I became annoyed with guessing.

The final explanation was anti-climatic and cheap. Come on, you can do better than that.

Hoffman stole the show with his very brief cameo. Jackson was his usual profane loudmouth stereotype. Hall and Reilly did not have to stretch much, but they were still quite adept at portraying unspoken sadness. I'm not a fan of Paltrow, but she conveyed the torn nature of her character quite well.

One other reviewer mentioned the fact that sometimes the characters don't know what to say, but that made it realistic. I totally agree. Real people rarely speak like movie characters. But in this one, the characters did speak like real people. Great job with that.

There were enough good aspects to this film, to make it worth seeing. But it is a labor to watch after a while, because not much happens, and not much is said. If you like art films, you will probably like this one. It reminded me of the work of Jim Jarmusch.