Well, if it rises and falls on its performances, it's got some pretty stellar performances. I don't know, I think the twist at the end is logical and explains the whole story of why Hall's character is taking such an interest in John C. Reilly. Wouldn't say it's a masterpiece, would put it a notch below PTA's later films and certainly below other debut films discussed such as "Badlands", "Citizen Kane", and "Blood Simple", but on it's own terms, it's a damn good movie.The Third Man wrote:The idea that Hard Eight is flawless totally falls apart when you bring up the writing, which you haven't mentioned. The plot feels like it was cobbled together from every generic crime film ever and thrown into a blender, and the dialogue is often stilted. PTA's weakest writing by miles, which is certainly where it most suffers in comparison to Badlands. The characters rise and fall on the strength of the performances, there's not much to them besides. (Also snickering at the idea of "peak Paltrow" being anything to get jazzed over.) And that twist at the end felt pretty lame. It's certainly a fine early showcase of what an obvious talent PTA was/is, but it's hardly Dwight Gooden's rookie season - more like Roger Clemens'.
I do think it's one of the prime examples of an executive meddling to a movie's benefit. PTA wanted to call it "Sydney", which is an awful title.

