User Reviews

I don't know what this movie was about. I only watched it because it had a great cast and director. I went into it knowing nothing of the plot or story.

From the opening scene, I knew pretty much where the story was going. Older, more savvy gambler takes young guy under his wing and teaches him the "tricks of the trade". At some point there's going to be a double cross and things go south. It was all there. Only, it wasn't, and it didn't.

What followed was a slow burn character study in which every one of my assumptions slowly fell apart.

I will be honest, I still do not know what the movie is about. In the opening scene the maverick gambler mentions having two adult children he "hasn't seen in years". This is a passing remark not related to the story in any way. However, I couldn't help but get the feeling that he was trying to atone for missing out on their lives. What I initially perceived as manipulation on his part-he seemed far to nice to not have altererior motives-in the end turns out to be, though imperfect, simply fatherly love.

The movie intentionally doesn't spell ANYTHING out for the audience. It's all up to you to figure out. By the end of the movie I was honestly wondering, "what's the point?" But I think THATS the point. You don't walk away NOT THINKING. To me it's a story of imperfect individuals atoning for iniquities-perceived or otherwise- that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Maybe I'm wrong and I missed the point completely. But I think, somewhere deep in the subtext of this often restrained scrip is the message of a man looking for forgiveness. I won't spoil anything more but I highly recommend the movie. Enjoy!

Caught it last night on Belgian TV. A little gem. An old guy, superbly played by Baker Hall, trying to relive his youth by helping two young losers (O'Reilly and Paltrow) get their lives back together. Of course they'll never make it: once a loser, always a loser. But Sydney still has to try. The claustrophobic, rip-off world of casinos, anonymous 'luxury' hotels, sleazy motels, is superbly portrayed. Surely, after watching this film, nobody would ever want to visit Vegas. Paltrow is brilliant as the whore with zero self-esteem, ready to destroy her chance of a new start for the sake of 300 bucks; money is the only way of validating her self-destructive promiscuity. Samuel Jackson swaggers through the role of Satan as if born to it. The only jarring note, preventing this one getting a 9/10, is the stuff about Sydney wanting to atone for shooting the young guy's father. This feels like it was written in as an afterthought, by some dumb studio exec who'd missed the film's whole point: 'The tragedy of youth is old age' (Oscar Wilde).

This is also known as "Sydney" (director Paul Thomas Anderson's original title) after the name of the movie's central character, a somewhat mysterious casino gambler (and murderer, by the way) played by veteran Philip Baker Hall. The new and more commercially-viable title comes from the game of craps in which the dice player can roll an eight with a six and a two or with a five and a three or with two fours. Since probabilistically the hardest way to roll an eight is with two fours, that's called a "hard eight." Such a choice occurs twice in the movie, and symbolically a "hard eight" may represent the gambler's psychology.

Co-starring as Sydney's protégé is John C. Reilly as John Finnegan, a kind of lovable schmuck who falls in love with a Reno waitress/prostitute named Clementine, played quirkily by Gwyneth Paltrow. Samuel L. Jackson has a modest but very convincing part as a casino security sleaze.

Anderson's direction of these very talented actors was excellent. I wish I could say the same for his script. Most viewers I suspect will find this a bit dull; and, as it unfolds and we find out why Sydney is playing guardian angel to John, viewers may even be disappointed. I know I was. I had expected something original as Sydney's motivation, but what we learn in the last reel is quite ordinary (as movie motivations go).

What kept me watching was of course trying to figure out what makes Sydney tick and why and how he can spend his time so aimlessly gambling (and almost always losing), and where his money comes from. I also was intrigued by the originality of Anderson's treatment as opposed to his story per se. The stylized, slightly "off" dialogue, especially well-suited to Reilly's studied interpretation and Philip Baker Hall's inscrutability, reminded me of something that might have been written by David Mamet or even Quentin Taratino. Finally I was interested in seeing how Paltrow would play a role seemingly quite removed from her screen persona. I thought the delicate and very winning star of Shakespeare in Love (1998), etc., worked hard to create the sort of lower-class, uneducated, "victim" of the Las Vegas/ Reno casino culture that Anderson had in mind, and I thought she did it well. However, hers was not a sympathetic role and it did not test Paltrow's range as a actress, although playing a prostitute is something many actresses find interesting. I am thinking of Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman (1990) and Elizabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas (1995) or even Catherine Deneuve in Belle de Jour (1967).

Bottom line here is that this is a studied, "arty" movie well worth seeing because of the performances and as an example of Anderson's unique style, but not something for a mass audience or for those viewers looking for a diverting thriller.

But see this for Philip Baker Hall, one of those rare actors to actually find his best roles and do his best work in his sixties. Indeed, his performance here revitalized a career that had long languished. In this regard I am reminded of the Swedish actor Victor Sjostrom who gave perhaps his greatest performance in Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries (1957) when he was 80 years old. Although I have seen little of Hall's work, I am willing to bet that this was one of his greatest performances.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

You get the impression that this inexpensive film turned out just about the way the director, P. T. Anderson, wanted it to. It was shot among the neon casinos, shadowy parking lots, and motel and hotel rooms in Reno, Nevada, "The Biggest Little City in the World" as the sign over the highway used to read. The photography and lighting are hypnotically low, though nothing is obscured. The direction is straightforward without being headlong. There is no directorial razzle dazzle. Events take place in real time. No car pursuits, no exploding fireballs, no shoot outs, no ugly guns. The performances are about as good as they get for this type of smallish film. Not that the actors necessarily have a good deal of range, but that they fit their parts well.

Philip Baker Hall is the central figure, an ex hood who hangs in a hotel apartment, dresses in inconspicuous suits and ties, has a little money stashed away from previous enterprises "back East", and adds to it by a little well-calculated gambling. Hall's character is polite but inexpressive, and he doesn't like profane language used around women. You may recognize him from currently running TV commercials of a comic nature for a product whose name I never cared to remember. He runs across John C. Reilly, a young guy who is down and out, and more or less adopts him. He also takes under his wing a cocktail waitress, Gwyneth Paltrow, who adds to HER income by hooking on the side. The two young folks get along well under his avuncular tutelage.

Enter Samual L. Jackson in essentially the same role he played in "Jackie Brown," the savvy and self-interested dude who sees through all the rhetoric and hears all kinds of stories about all kinds of goings on. Nobody could do it better than Jackson. He smiles readily, extends a friendly, reassuring pat on the back, and projects an attitude of "You and I are men of the world and we both know what's really happening." The self interest is never too well hidden though and it proves his undoing.

John C. Reilly looks and acts a little dumb, as he should, but he doesn't bring any poetry to the part and gives the weakest performance. Gwyneth Paltrow is a little hard to believe as the put-upon, reluctant whore, but she brings it off by investing the role with a winsome quality, as if she'd just been snatched off an Iowa farm and sold into white slavery racket.

There is no musical score as such, no thumping electronic percussion to pump up the adrenalin and damage the inner ear, but there is source music. A trio plays in one of the lounges -- vibes, bass, and guitar -- quietly reproducing the kind of modestly jazzed-up old standards that Frank Sinatra would have eaten alive.

It's an unpretentious movie about affection, love, greed, and murder in Reno. Nicely done. But one carp. Philip Baker Hall stars. And there is a small scene with early Philip Seymour Hoffman rolling the dice against a "hard eight." Philip Baker Hall and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I only mention the director, Philip Thomas Anderson, in passing. I won't mention the name of the writer -- Philip Thomas Anderson -- at all. That's enough of that stuff. No more three names. It's an affectation that's pompous enough for women like Jennifer Jason Leigh but it's inexcusable in men. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, okay. That's history. But what's next? Ernest Miller Hemingway? I'm warning you guys -- cut it out.

Small film set in Reno, Nevada begins at a roadside diner with an older man Sydney (Phillip Baker Hall) offering to help a younger man John (John C Reilly) who is obviously down on his luck. He offers to take him to Reno give him $50 and show how at the casino's he can get a hotel room and dinner if he play's his proverbial card's right.

Phillip Baker Hall is ideally cast as Sydney a man who has obviously spent a lot of time in the casino's, and John C Reilly is as John who is just as obviously destined to be a victim in life. Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L Jackson have strong supporting roles.

The film is very atmospheric in capturing the real environment that exists inside the casino's behind the bright lights.

Nice song over the closing credits by Aimee Mann and Michael Penn.

The unusual circumstances in which two men meet before going on to become good friends, provides "Hard Eight" with an intriguing opening to a story which also features kidnapping, blackmail and a brutal killing. First-time director/writer Paul Thomas Anderson takes time and care to develop his characters and this approach pays off handsomely, as it's the strength of these characters and the relationships between them that ultimately make this movie so interesting and memorable.

The tense atmosphere and deliberate pacing, which are established right from the start, create a closeness between the two men and also add emphasis to the anxieties and suspicions that are present between them, especially during their first meeting.

As he approaches a roadside diner somewhere in Nevada, Sydney Brown (Philip Baker Hall), a professional gambler in his sixties, sees a young man who's clearly down-on-his-luck sitting on the ground close to the entrance of the building. He offers to buy him a cup of coffee and give him a cigarette. Sydney soon learns that John (John C Reilly) has lost all his money whilst gambling in an attempt to raise enough cash to pay for his mother's funeral. Sydney offers to show the young man how to be successful in the casinos and despite his understandable scepticism, John agrees.

A couple of years later, John has prospered as Sydney's protégé and after having paid off his mother's funeral costs, gets married to an attractive cocktail waitress called Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow). John has also become friendly with Jimmy (Samuel L Jackson) who's a security officer and a man that Sydney dislikes and really doesn't trust.

Clementine's part-time work as a hooker leads to trouble when one of her clients refuses to pay and she and John keep the man hostage in their motel room. Sydney is called to help them out and soon takes control of the situation but also runs into bigger trouble shortly after, when Jimmy threatens and blackmails him.

Philip Baker Hall gives a top class performance as the lonely, well dressed, experienced gambler with a face that's filled with sadness and lines. He's dignified and shrewd and looks as if he's been through some tough experiences but also finds it gratifying to help John out. John is another lonely person who appreciates the progress he's made under Sydney's guidance but his poor judgement and gullibility will clearly make it impossible for him to ever fully emulate his mentor's success. John C Reilly, in a consistently strong performance, is very natural and convincing in the way that he portrays John's naivety and impetuosity.

Clementine is not as streetwise as she needs to be and Gwyneth Paltrow conveys her character's underlying sadness very effectively. Samuel L Jackson is also on great form as the violent thug who totally underestimates Sydney.

"Hard Eight" is haunting and poignant and its overall tone and tempo is perfect for a movie in which a dark secret, hidden motives and a need for redemption affect so much of what takes place.

Veteran gambler Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) stumbles across John (John C Reilly) sat outside a diner. The two men strike up a conversation and Sydney quickly learns that John has tried his hand at gambling in order to pay for his mother's funeral. Sydney offers to help John out and gives him a crash-course in how to hustle the casino out of a fortune. Although Sydney seems to be helping John out, is there more to what he's doing than meets the eye?

This is Paul Thomas Anderson's debut picture (both as writer and director) and under normal circumstances I would normally go easy on a debutant's picture. Unfortunately, I've seen a few of PTA's films such as Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love and therefore I can't really be that charitable and sadly all of these films suffer the same problems as Hard Eight (albeit to varying degrees). Anyway let's try and evaluate this film.

Well I have to admit that it started well and seemed to tell the tale of a young man called John who needed a bit of a direction in life. John then stumbles across Sydney who teaches him how to hustle the casino and teaches him a bit of self-respect and how to value himself as a person. OK so far so good, but what happens beyond this point is almost beyond a travesty....

The film then skips by two years and we now find ourselves in Reno, Nevada. Sydney is in a casino there and John is in there too with his new friend Jimmy (Samuel L Jackson). It's clear from this point that we're lead to assume that Jimmy has lead John astray, but is this actually true? From this point on the film goes from telling an interesting story about John (a misguided individual) getting some direction in life (from Syndey) to a stupid story about his shotgun wedding to casino waitress and prostitute on the side Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow)and them keeping a guy hostage because he didn't pay Clementine for sex - I get what Anderson was getting at here, but it's so badly handled that it becomes laughable.

The film takes a turn for the worst when Jimmy and Sydney meet and we learn that Sydney killed John's father. I suspect Anderson intended this to be a plot twist that got the 'Wow' factor from the audience, but it's one that's so ludicrous and jars against the narrative so much that it's almost too ridiculous to believe. Yes it at least explains why Sydney wanted to bond with John at the start, but I felt a bit cheated when this was revealed. The story struggles more under scrutiny when you realise that Jimmy and Sydney were both in Atlantic City when Jimmy saw Sydney murder John's father, but then the two just happen to both meet a few years later 2,500 miles away from the crime scene with the son of the dead dad just happening to be there as well. I'm all for trying to suspend disbelief, but this was just too much.

The ending is even worse when we see Jimmy get killed by the very guy that killed John's father; yes Jimmy was wrong to blackmail Sydney, but it's clear that Sydney was the worst of the two. This aspect of the film is even worse when you consider that Anderson offers no real commentary on anything that's happened and ends the film in a lazy way whereby you don't know whether or not Syndey gets away with his crimes. Even if this aspect of the plot didn't bother you the fact that Anderson didn't even bother to make Jimmy's assassination surprising or suspenseful just showed a real lack of care.

The only positive I can take from this film is that it is very well-made. Anderson's direction is stylish and the performances from the likes of Baker-Hall, Jackson & Reilly were all good (the first two gave rather stock performances, but Reilly really excelled in giving his character a gawky nervous charm). I like the late Philip Seymour Hoffman as an actor, but he was actually really annoying in the 5 minutes or so that he was in this film.

Ultimately, the big problem with Hard Eight is that it's really badly-written and whilst I got the feeling that Anderson was attempting to make this an insightful character study he doesn't give this film or his characters anywhere near the required depth to make these aspects work as well as they should do.