Eureka

I've never seen a "normal" movie by Nicolas Roeg, but, even being a huge fan of his who has seen 4 or 5 of his films, this movie was...insane. After this, it's safe to say he is one of my favorite directors. His THE WITCHES (1990) is what I consider to be the greatest "children's horror film" ever made - it was one of the most influential films of my childhood, and only gets better with time. DON'T LOOK NOW (1973) featured one of the most eerie and stylish opening sequences I had ever seen, kept me almost more intrigued than I've ever felt by a film throughout, then shook me in a way I've never experienced before with it's finale - it was proto-Lynch, for one, and the whole film almost feels like a pre-cursor to Argento's SUSPIRIA (1977) to me as well, another one of my favorite films. Pure surreal horror in a way I'd never seen it before. It absolutely imprinted in me forever.

EUREKA came out between those masterpieces in 1983. It feels like a true mish-mash of film vibes and it's a smorgasbord unlike any I've ever seen. Similar to DON'T LOOK NOW, the whole expansive opening sequence feels like a bizarre nightmare but still maintains narrative cohesion - visually it's mind-bending and it grasps you with it's unique claws from the start.

Gene Hackman is a great choice for the lead as he brings a ton of viscera to this complex protagonist who isn't quite an anti-hero, but seems to be hated by just about everyone. The rest of the cast is made up of an unexpected and very intriguing blend. The legendary Rutger Hauer, who brings a ton of depth to this film as tends to whenever the script gives him the opportunity to do so, as well as Mickey Rourke, Joe Pesci in the earliest role I've ever seen him in, and more. Co-star Theresa Russell, who I was unfamiliar with previously, brings a very unique energy as well. While her performance feels the least genuine, it also colors the film with a very singular flavor of surrealism and old-fashioned drama. Often when the scenes focused on her get really intense, it starts to feel like a 40's or 50's film, which messes with your mind because nothing else in the movie feels like this aside from maybe the general plot and themes themselves.

The movie is really quite a rollercoaster. It's relatively lengthy at 130 minutes but it never really slows down and it always morphing and taking the viewer to unexpected places. I mean, after the first explosive 20 minutes, naturally the next half hour or so feels quite a bit slower in comparison, but it's an array of psychological ammunition from there on out. There's one over-the-top sequence in the second half that felt straight out of a Lucio Fulci film - it was BRUTAL, so stylish and nightmarish, and that REALLY threw me off - my jaw was dropped. Lord, I had to collect myself afterwards. Pick myself back up and put my pieces back together. Overall, it's really quite difficult to summarize what makes this film so unique using words - it simply has to be experienced to be understood. One thing is for sure though, only the legend Nicolas Roeg could have made this.

In the end, I really feel like one of the only flaws in the entire film was the epic courtroom monologue delivered by Russell towards the end of the film. It was mostly the writing, but the acting in combination just didn't work for me. It felt overblown, melodramatic, and just a little too off-kilter. I did think it worked somewhat well as an effective exaggeration of a woman having a manic breakdown, but even that just felt out of place in the context. That aside, even though the absolute ridiculousness of most of the movie, the film did conjure some serious emotional resonance throughout the second half. I was in tears as the credits began to roll. This is a severely under-looked and immensely unique movie, which all film fans should see. Do it. Roeg was a king.

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.

I had never heard of Ed Lauter until he died a few months ago, even though I had seen him in a number of movies; he simply hadn't registered in my mind. While watching Nicolas Roeg's "Eureka", I was surprised to see that Lauter co-starred. I had also never heard of Harry Oakes until I read about the movie. The movie had a good plot but seemed as though it could've been shorter. In the end, I think that the main point to derive from the movie is that prestige makes people go crazy. Gene Hackman's character struck gold and it made him rich, causing him to go nuts, and the insanity extends to his acquaintances. As shown in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" and "The Wolf of Wall Street", people will do anything for money.

Anyway, it's an OK not great movie.

Rarely has a film had so much potential, that goes unrealized. Gene Hackman and his gold discovery is beautifully photographed, yet so unlikely and unrealistic, that it seems surreal. From the moment things shift to the island, the movie plays like a beautiful montage, with story continuity only an afterthought. It becomes merely a series of images strung together with philosophical messages, huge time jumps, flashbacks, and metaphysical nonsense. Yet, the images of ultra violence, nudity, snow, gold flakes, and the Victorian splendor, will linger long after the movie ends. From that standpoint at least some of "Eureka"s potential is realized, but not enough to grab the greatness that was within grasp. - MERK

I too first saw this in London when it came out May 1983, at the Screen on the Hill. It was my O-level year, and I was a skinny, awkward 15-year-old, desperately trying to get into my first 18-rated film. It worked. But was it worth it? The film has an extraordinary opening section, as Gene Hackman finds the gold under the snow-encrusted earth, culminating in a spectacular, slow-motion explosion of rock and snow. Set to extracts of Wagner's DAS RHEINGOLD, it's unforgettable, thrilling cinema, and had my jaw dropping into my cappuccino. We also have the sight of a dying, half-frozen man blowing his brains out again and again, bringing to mind the disjointed, hallucinatory quality one recognises from the director of THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH and DON'T LOOK NOW. Stunning, disturbing stuff.

Unfortunately the momentum quickly slackens as we cut forwards in time to a rather dull, plodding melodrama about a Kane-like man who in his anguish says, "Once I had it all...now I only have everything." (Coming after the prologue, this also applies to the film itself.) There's some nasty scenes involving voodoo and Rutger Hauer doing something rather strange with a python, some gut-wrenching violence involving a blow-torch and the contents of a pillow, and a soap-opera court-room finale that feels as if it's wandered in from an entirely different film altogether. There are rumours of a different film lurking in this exuberant mess: one of the film's stars has hinted that it was not Roeg's final version that we saw. But I couldn't call this a success. Roeg fans should check it out as an oddity, but be warned: after the brilliant beginning, it's downhill all the way.