MovieChat Forums > Sydney (1997) Discussion > I am confused about the title

I am confused about the title


Apart from the general confusion about whether the film is called Sydney or Hard Eight, I would like to know why IMDB is saying that Sydney was released in 1996 and Hard Eight in 1997. I thought the title was changed before cinematic release, but is this like this because of the change just for video, and if that is the case, isn't that a bit stupid, because all of a sudden the people that wanted to see Sydney in the theatre, will now have nothing to watch on video? Hmmmm?

reply

I think the film was released at Sundance in 1996 as Sydney, but for it's general release in 1997 the title was changed to Hard Eight, because the producers didn't want people to think it was a film about Australia. The morons.

reply

I agree. Morons.

reply

The original title PTA wanted it to be is "Sydney", the producer's and distributor's title is "Hard Eight".
I always refer to it as "Sydney".

"Who the f'ck is John Malkovich?"

www.peterjackson.de.vu

reply

I may be in the minority here, but I like "Hard Eight" better than "Sydney". I think it resonates better with the image of the bet on the Hard Eight (that's getting an 8 by rolling two 4's, for those who don't know crap about craps) that we see a couple of times in the movie. It sort of fits better into a theme of the movie, which is taking a risk on things, gambling with your entire life, not just on a game.

Besides, "Sydney" as a title seems to center the movie too much on Sydney. And while he's clearly the dominant character, I find it to be about as much about John and Clementine as him.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Read more carefully!! He never wanted the title to be Hard Eight-- in fact, he still refers to it as Sydney. After the studio had renamed it Hard Eight, he fought to have HIS cut (rather than theirs) released-- and it was, albeit under the *studio's* choice of name.

reply

"while he's clearly the dominant character, I find it to be about as much about John and Clementine as him."

I disagree. As much as I liked John C. Reilly's performance, John and Clementine weren't much more than plot points. More than just the dominant character, Sidney was the focus of the film. (Personally, I couldn't take my eyes off of him.) The 'plot twist' too, supports that. As a resolution to John's story it was pretty weak. It's strength lies in what it reveals about Sidney.

reply


what does it reveal about sydney.

i liked this movie while watching it because of the riveting performance
of sydney ... but the nonsense of john, and clementine, and then the
stupidity of jimmy trying to blackmail sydney did not seem to make any
sense.

first ... in order the evaluate some of these motives you would need
to understand more what happened in atlantic city and why did sydney
kill john's father?

sydney seems to need someone to take care of, and have no needs of his
own except self preservation.

john is a moron who will never get it and does not even listen, so why
does sydney waste his time with john.

maybe there is a clue that i missed, or some point to this, but this
whole movie was stupid to me by the end.

i kept having a nagging thought that somehow john was not playing
straight with sydney ... there was strain at the end where sydney
told john he loved him as a son, and john thinks for a long time and
then returns ... but it looked like he felt guilty, like he was in
with jimmy on the plot against sydney, or that jimmy may have already
told john about sydney and his dad.

and why would sydney care what jimmy told john about he and his dad?
sydney was smart enough to handle any situation, why did that rattle
him? so jimmy's shakedown was just a plain armed robbery which was
stupid on his part because he was known, had the permanent address
and professed to even know about sydney. he should have known sydney
would not stand for that, so he should have put a bullet in him after
getting the money.

the other thing is that when they went down to get the money sydney
could have just called the cops or security in ... after all casinos
have about the tighest security there is anywhere.

this movie made little sense even though it has some emotional
charisma, and that is why it is a little known flop i guess??

either that or i am missing something bigtime.

reply

[deleted]