Jogada de Risco

This first film from Paul Thomas Anderson shows the promise he would later fulfill with BOOGIE NIGHTS. The writing here is as sharp as it was in the later film, but it must be said as a director, he sometimes lets scenes go on too long (ironic that BOOGIE NIGHTS, which is a longer film, is also a tighter one). The main connection between both films is Anderson's obvious affection for his characters. Also the relationship between Sydney and John doesn't turn out the way you'd expect. And Anderson is to be commended for avoiding melodrama.

Philip Baker Hall is one of those actors who you may not know by name, but when you see him you instinctively feel he's right for the part, no matter how small. This is one of his rare leading roles, and he's perfect, showing the character's success and also his loneliness, without sentimentalizing it. John C. Reilly is properly eager and naive as John. Samuel L. Jackson is dependable here, and Gwyneth Paltrow proves she doesn't need a British accent to give a good performance. She and Jackson should also be commended for backing Anderson when he had problems with the studio.

Paul Thomas Anderson's first film, Sydney (titled 'Hard Eight' by the distributors), has a story, but its more concerned about the characters, and how these actors play them. Like its inspiration, Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob le Flambeur, understanding who these people are in this seedy, desperate environment, is the key. The script is intelligent, and contains a truth that isn't found in most "off-beat" crime films. In fact, the crimes in the film, while not without the importance to the story, is secondary to how these people are around one another, the courtesy, the un-said things, the mishaps, and the truths. In tune with Melville, the film is decidedly European- the story is quite leisurely, almost too much so, but in the characters Anderson has created and fleshed out he has people we can care about.

Philip Baker Hall, in a towering performance of professionalism (he's one of those great character actors who practically wears the years of his life on his face, not to sound pretentious about it), is the title character of Sydney. He offers Jimmy (John C. Reilly, believable in a role seemingly more like himself than his Reed Rothchild in Anderson's Boogie Nights) a cigarette and a cup of coffee, and then finds out through the conversation his mother's passed on. He offers up an intricate, but rewarding, way of making money in a casino without laying down a card (the slots, and a different scheme). Flash ahead two years later (awesome transition, by the way) where Jimmy is with Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow, a good performance). Things seem to be going alright all around, except that Jimmy has a violent (shown off-screen, of course) run-in, and needs Sydney's help. But there's another secret that has yet to be told.

All the little details of the story are accentuated by a directorial style that is usually peerless, and the tracking shots that have become paramount in Anderson's films (i.e. opening of Boogie Nights, walking through TV studio in Magnolia) are as smooth and interesting as anything from Scorsese. The Vegas Muzak is a touch that adds, like with Melville, a cool kind of touch not at all un-like film-noir. It's actually a thin line that Anderson is walking; how to make the Melville story's elements (an aging gambler past his prime, watching over the young people in their own messes, seeing the old turn to new) as one's own. I think he's achieved that in the film with a sense of sincerity with the characters dialog with each other. Perhaps Sydney has a different agenda than just being friendly. But Anderson wisely allows Hall to make the right choices with just certain facial expressions, what isn't said that counts. And the scenes with Samuel L. Jackson bring out the kind of intensity, sometimes quiet sometimes not, that hallmark his best performances. Maybe not a masterpiece, but it certainly isn't the work of an amateur, assured in his own script as a director, and in the strengths of his four key players.

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.

Excellent movie. Excellent actors. I like the calm flow of the movie. Dialogs are strong: very realistic, not cultivated in a predictable and

understandable main stream drama form. The hostage scene is brilliant. In many movies the characters

react in a movie-like way, shaped in how the characters would

react if...too cultivated, mostly showcases for actors to show how

emotional and brilliant they can play their roles. In this movie the characters many times don't know what to say or

how to react and that's brilliant in my opinion. In real life you don't have strong and powerful one-liners at hand. But still it is a movie and put into a form, a calm and understated,

but brilliant form.

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.