Eureka

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

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.

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.

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.