Eureka

Eureka is an undertaking where the director has a vision and, against all odds, follows it through.The downside was the woeful distribution of the film on completion, resulting in lack of audience participation due to a delayed release and scant showings (it played in just two London cinemas); just goes to show that certain distribution companies are flummoxed when they have a unique picture to promote. Eureka boasts a great across-the-boards cast, with Gene Hackman giving his customary all in a driven and committed performance, ably supported by Theresa Russell, Rutger Hauer, Joe Pesci and in a minor role, Mickey Rourke. Director Roeg's use of locations, his skill in cutting, the harnessing of atmosphere and the adroit use of music add up to an intriguing whole, loosely based on fact. It was made at the start of the 80's after an astonishing run of films by Roeg.

Actually, this is a very quirky film, immersed in other things; in this case it is the Kabbalah. (This is made clear when Rutger Hauer wears a shirt with the Tree of the Kabbalah drawn on the front to a formal dinner in the middle of the film.) I found this release of the film both impressive and a let-down. It is impressive because of its ambition as a film; it is a let-down because (the way it is edited) most sense of "suspense" is replaced by puzzlement; this is The Zohar meeting Hollywood and suffering from the meeting. In the end, I don't feel this movie has any grand message for the world, except perhaps the pointlessness of having so much wealth if you don't do anything with it.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

The Latter-Half of Nicolas Roeg's Filmography. A Career that Started On-Fire and Slowly Fizzled. Critics and Fans Did Not Associate or Relate to "Eureka" Fringy-Style and Off-Kilter Tone...Despite Similar Roeg Movies that Created the Buzz for the Cinematographer/Technician Turned Director in the First Place..."Performance" (1970)..."Walkabout" (1971)..."Don't Look Now" (1973)..."The Man Who Fell To Earth" (1976)..."Bad Timing" (1980)...

This String of Successful Out of the Box Offerings from Director Roeg is a Remarkable (both Critical and Financial) of Consistency that Hit a Chord. But Starting with "Eureka (1980) His Charm, Suddenly, No Longer Did the Trick and the Remainder of His Output is Considered, with Few Exceptions, Mediocre or just Bad.

"Eureka" became the "Kryptonite" for Roeg and He Never Seemed to Attain the "Magic" Again.

It's More Over-the-Top Disturbing. More Violent, More Decadent, More Outrageous Behavior, More of Everything. It's Still Roeg, but Roeg On Steroids Losing His Mind...

Unrestrained, Far From Grounded in Reality. Shocking Scenes, Including a Voodoo Ritual that Pulls No Punches, Sex, Ultra-Violent, and Disgusting Images.

A Dream Cast,,,Including Gene Hackman, Theresa Russell, Rutger Hauer, Joe Peci, Jane Laprtaire...

that All Seemed to Capitulate to the Rogue Roeg's Vision, of a Surreal Early 20th Century and the Monied Elite that Literally Lives on Their Own Private Island.

Nicolas Roeg, perhaps Guilty of Over-Reach that Pleased No One, and the Movie is Unsettling and Disturbing to Watch...but it's a Train-Wreck that has that Train-Wreck Allure that is Magnetism of "Rubber-Necking" and a "Guilty Pleasure" Watching the Dark-Side of Humanity that Contains Very Little Light.

Sounds Like a "Cult-Movie' Personified, but it's Not a Cult Movie Yet and is Mostly a Forgotten Misfire that Never Made its Mark, is Virtually Unknown, a Mystery Considering what's On and Behind the Screen. As Joe Pesci says in Oliver Stone's JFK..."It's a mystery wrapped in an Enigma"...By the Way...Pesci Plays, What Else? A Gangster and Nemesis to the Unhinged "Richest Man in the World"...Gene Hackman

The Movie Deserves A Closer Look, just because of All the Talented Folks that Put Together this "Crazy Man's Quilt. A Fascinating, if Bizarre and a Turn-Off for Most Folks. But Nonetheless an Artistic Experiment that is... Worth a Watch.

Eureka is the kind of film you think you'll hate unless you give it a fair shake. It is a interplay between many characters, much like a soap opera. It works only if you take a general interest in the trivialities of each character. Jack McCann (Hackman) is the center of the film. His life is all about the gold he felt he earned, and the principle that he will never have any partners to share a percentage with. His life is ravaged by Mayakofsky (Pesci) and his henchmen. Charles Perkins, a friend of Jack's spent much of the movie trying to warn him that these men were dangerous. Jack's dilemma wasn't that he was waiting for his death, but the fact that he thought he was invincible. Being stubborn and set in his ways, Jack refused to give in to Mayakofsky. Jack was a man preoccupied with gold, but not loveless. He seemed to love all the women in his life. Also his daughter, Spacey Tracy. A loose young woman married to Claude (Hauer). Tracy had her head in the clouds, and wanted to live in a fantasy world. She did not provoke the fights between her father and Claude, but instigated them. She wanted Claude to fight as a proof of his love. Claude was most elusive. You never get his angle. If he loved Tracy or was just using her. She even used the witness stand as a way of finding out where Claude stood with her instead of pinning for the guilty ones involved in the tragic end of her father. (Claude did his own defense in court!) The movie has it's funny points. Like the dinner table scene at the McCann's where Jack makes some insulting remarks to the guests. Some of the best scenes involve Aurelio D'Amato, played by Mickey Rourke. He's cast in another glossed over film where he is perfect, but forgotten. D'Amato is a yiddish associate of Mayakofsky. And one of the main guys pestering Jack to sign the Luna Bay deal.(Mayakofsky wanted to build a casino on it.) There are scenes where D'Amato is begging Jack to sign. His baby face and soft voice should have gotten the devil to sign the document, but Jack wasn't so easy. Rourke's performance alone is reason enough to see this movie. And its not surprising he has a night with Tracy. Tracy loved Claude, but how could she resist D'Amato? Eureka is more of a film about the desires of man. Each character wants something, and they spend the entire film in pursuit of those things.

Roeg draws on Who Killed Sir Harry Oakes, as well as Skakespeares tempest and some Robert Service to create this tale of a man who "once had the world, now i just have the everything". a film of thems and more subplots than plot-and many themes. hackmann is a perfect Roeg actor-like Sutherland, Fox and Bowie, but some other performances are not as comfortable, or not as well written -particularly the women. A film that is worth repeated viewing

Weird, sloppy, self-indulgent, meta-physical, sometimes boring, sometimes hallucinatory: all these things describe this misfire from director Nicolas Roeg. Gene Hackman stars as a gold prospector in Alaska during the final days of the gold rush. Most of the people have given up and gone home at this point, but Hackman refuses. After a strange encounter with a meteor (I think) he receives some kind of lucky rock (I think) that gives him the extra push to find his gold strike. And does he ever. Cut to decades later, and he's fabulously wealthy, with a giant estate named Eureka. His grown daughter (Theresa Russell) has married a European playboy (Rutger Hauer) that dad doesn't approve of. There's also a shady consortium of some sort, headed by Jewish tough guy Joe Pesci (!) and represented by Italian lawyer Mickey Rourke (!), that needs Hackman's financial backing for some new endeavor.

The cinematography is beautiful, as it usually is in Roeg's films, but the plot is a mess of ham-handed symbolism and uninspired dramatics. The terrific cast, which also includes Ed Lauter, Joe Spinell and Corin Redgrave, is good, with Hackman the stand-out, as usual. Rourke looks scared and uncomfortable, which fits with his character, but he comes across more like he's fully aware of how wrong he is in the role. Russell and Hauer are both beautiful, and they both spend much of the film in various states of undress. There's also one of the most brutal, protracted murder scenes I've seen in a film in a long time. It's starts off shocking, but becomes rather ludicrous the longer it's dragged out. I can't really recommend this film to anyone except Hackman fans or fans of bizarre obscurities.