Genres

Visitors Review

MARIO GAUCI 2013-05-22 09:57:37

EUREKA (Nicolas Roeg, 1983) **1/2

Despite intermittent evidence of Roeg's usual quality, this film can beseen as the beginning of his decline: it's interesting, certainlyambitious but, ultimately, unsatisfying. Surprisingly enough, it's notas cryptic as the director's earlier work though still not for alltastes (particularly given an irrelevant voodoo dance sequenceinvolving a snake-infested orgy). The script is by ex-film critic PaulMayersberg who had already written THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976) forRoeg. The film, which could comfortably be divided into three parts, isaided by a plethora of talent both in front - Gene Hackman, TheresaRussell, Rutger Hauer, Jane Lapotaire, Ed Lauter, Mickey Rourke, JoePesci and Joe Spinell (a bit part as a thug) - and behind the camera(cinematographer Alex Thompson and composer Stanley Myers).The first part, in which Hackman strikes it rich, is the best with twoscenes that are particularly memorable: a despairing prospector blowinghis head off in front of Hackman and, then, when the latter discoversthe gold mine - an almost mystical sequence; however, one still has tocontend with Helena Kallianotes' eccentric performance as a fortuneteller/whore who befriends Hackman. The second part, in which we seeHackman twenty years on as a tycoon with a family - all-powerful butemotionally void: this section creates some added tension withHackman's clashes with playboy Hauer (who marries his daughter,Russell, without her father's consent) and unscrupulous businesspartners Pesci and Rourke, and culminates with his violent death (quitea graphic sequence, occurring about 80 minutes into the 130-minutepicture!) at the hands of the latters' thugs. The third and final part,then, involving Hauer's trial for Hackman's murder is the leastcompelling - given the latter's obvious absence, but also the sillycontrivances which dominate this section (and particularly thepreposterous scene of Russell's hysterics on the witness stand, withHauer acting as his own defense attorney!).EUREKA was shot in 1981 but the company that financed it couldn't makehead or tail of it and decided to shelve the film; eventually, it wasreleased in the U.K. in 1983 (I own a copy of the "Movies & Video"magazine from that time, which carries a reasonably favorable review ofthe film) and, according to "Leonard Maltin's Film Guide", didn't openin the U.S. until 1985!

Petri Pelkonen 2013-05-22 04:16:00

Gene Hackman portrays a rich man

Jack McCann is a Klondike prospector who one day in 1925, after 15years of searching, falls into a mountain of gold.He becomes one of thewealthiest men in the world.In 1945 he lives in luxury on a Caribbeanisland.He's married to Helen, who drinks a lot.His daughter Tracy ismarried to a man named Claude, who Jack doesn't trust.And there aresome Miami mobsters who want his island to build a casino.It seems tohim that everybody is after his money.Eureka (1983) is directed byNicolas Roeg.The story is loosely based on the true murder of Sir HarryOakes in the Bahamas in 1943.Gene Hackman does a solid job as JackMcCann.Without Hackman's performance this would be a much poorerfilm.Today this great, now retired actor turns 80, socongratulations.Theresa Russell is great as his daughter, Tracy McCannMaillot Van Horn.Rutger Hauer is terrific as Claude Maillot VanHorn.Jane Lapotaire does very good job as the wife Helen.Mickey Rourkeis marvelous as Aurelio D'Amato.Ed Lauter is great as CharlesPerkins.Joe Pesci is brilliant as Mayakofsky.The movie offers somedecent drama, especially due to Jack McCann's character.Hackman'scharacter seems like a rich man, but yet he's poor.His fear for hiswealth and his soul make him that way, alienating him from those thatare close to him.The scene where Jack is being murdered, is mostbrutal.His corpse is being partially incinerated and strewn withfeathers.The movie could have been better, sure.I had the greatest timein the beginning, watching him searching for that gold.Butnevertheless, quite fascinating movie.

2013-05-16 14:12:31

Eureka.....A masterwork...

Nic Roeg has made a number of great films, aka 'Bad Timing', 'Don't Look Now' etc but 'Eureka' is a masterwork, a work of true genius. And it stems, like all great films, from a great script.....this time from Paul Mayersberg.The subject deals with the problem of success. What do you do when you find what you've always been after ?A fantastic cast headed by the trio of Gene Hackman, Theressa Russell, and Rutger Hauer weave their way through a complex plot based on the book 'Who Killed Sir Harry Oats' by Marshall Houts.If you like film, structure and complex characterisation then this is a must see. Watch it before you die.

2013-05-16 06:17:50

"I once had it all. Now, I just have everything."

By owning tons of books of film criticism, the reviews I've read about EUREKA are so sundry and varied. The validities that critics have brought up about the film (both positive and negative) are justified, which had given me an unsure opinion on the EUREKA's true value. I have watched the film several times and examining the fact that it has never ceased to amaze me, EUREKA has engraved a place in the list of my favorite films. The cinematography (specifically the imagery in the cold of the Yukon) have haunted me whenever I talk to people about great photography in films. What amazes me more is that great actors such as Gene Hackman, Rutger Hauer, Mickey Rourke and Joe Pesci put such faith in the arthouse movement in order to star in what some consider a Nicolas Roeg relic in a realm of such diverse arthouse efforts by major studios (United Artists reportedly put up "mucho dinero" for this film to be made).The film follows Jack McCann (Gene Hackman) throughout his life and legacy. It begins in the Yukon and his crusade to find the summit of all dreams and fantasies...the quest to find gold. Exclaiming "I never earned a nickel from another man's sweat", McCann sets foot throughout the ravaged Canadian wilderness, through towns which are developing into ghost towns as well as the acquired warmth of whorehouses ("Gold smells stronger than a woman"). When McCann finds the gold (in a wonderfully wrought orgasmic sequence when gold flows out like a million waterfalls as McCann roars in ecstasy. We then juxtapose from the iciness of the Yukon to the glow of the Caribbean with wife (Jane Lapontier) puttin' it on the sauce and turning Tarot cards and daughter (Roeg's wife Theresa Russell) woefully throwing herself at a handsome but devious Dutch playboy (Rutger Hauer). Meanwhile, McCann's island paradise is almost literally going to the gods as both Miami gangster (Pesci) and lawyer sidekick (Mickey Rourke) conspire to overthrow his island empire appropriately named "Eureka".The "courtroom histrionics" that Maltin so much complained about in the film's final third are essential to character metamorphasis as the ambience of Hackman's McCann character flows into free-spirited Hauer, who he once scorned in hatefulness. It is important to realize that this character transmographication explains the nuances throughout the film, with its numerous allusions to voodoo and tokens of character's fortune. Nicolas Roeg, who gave audience such stylish and surreal tales like DON'T LOOK NOW and PERFORMANCE, is in fine form and his complete respect for technique is what ultimately makes the film unforgettable.Hackman's McCann character, in a scene with Lapontiere, is in bed looking around at all he has, dissatisfied with what he and his environment has evolved into, retorts "I used to have it all...now I just have everything." A perfect line to express the film's convictions. EUREKA is, in my opinion, the best film of the three years it was distributed over. The film's epic offbeat structure only adds to its message. Some of the scenes illustrating Roeg's technique will make you shout "Eureka!"

fedor8 2013-05-16 15:30:36

Another mediocre Roeg movie.

Somehow Roeg's themes tend to be better than the films themselves. Heoften picks original and unusual stories, but once again the result onthe screen is disappointing. Not terribly interesting, even dull atcertain parts in the first half, plus it's messy and not alwaysconvincing.It starts off with a reasonable twenty or so minutes in Alaska (orwherever), then goes nowhere for a while, with sometimes pointless andsometimes boring dialog. The second half gets confusing, with scenesjust being piled up without any kind of sequence that would make sense.The courtroom scenes are tedious, throwing yet more confusion. IsRussell a part of Pesci's plan? Was she in on it? If not, why did shesleep with Rourke? If she wasn't in on it, then somehow her affair withRourke doesn't make sense; she said something in her never-endingcourtroom speech about having affairs herself, sleeping around withmen. Was that supposed to clarify her sleeping with Rourke while herhusband was on trial for murder? It doesn't quite wash. Her impassioneddialogue with her husband, acting as his own attorney, goes on foreverbut unfortunately also goes nowhere. After this speech, we understandboth her and the plot even less. Then Hauer gets surprisinglyacquitted, and he and Russell have a little talk in the last part,which doesn't really do much in the ways of shedding some light onanything.But easily the messiest part of the movie is the entire night of themurder; scenes of ritualistic natives' orgy mix with Hackman goingaround the island, first searching for Hauer and Russell and thenbumping (literally, with his car) into his business partner. Hackman islead to Pesci's men, but refuses to sign a contract, and this entirescene with him and the gang members is unconvincing and almost silly.Hauer JUST HAPPENS to be there and witnesses this meeting (I know it'san island, but surely it isn't only ten meters wide), and Hackmansomehow sees him. Beforehand, Hauer had taken part in theafore-mentioned orgy, and escorts some women and a guy away from it,telling them not to talk about it.The whole thing appears disorganized, disconnected and lacks flow. Thesame goes for the scenes leading up to the ensuing murder of Hackman,which are just scenes piled one on top of another, as though puttogether by an editor drunk out of his mind. At the end of the film wehear Hackman's words again, something about gold or whatever. I have noidea what Roeg's point was; too many things here don't add up. Thetypically Roegian emphasis on the supernatural didn't help either.Hauer is very good. A film that strives for some "profound message",but fails to deliver it (if it even has one).

2013-05-16 01:53:58

vulgar

Vulgar colours for a vulgar world, exaggerated, disorienting scenes of violence, a gruesome murder, symbolism throughout that is either overtly obvious or quietly subtle, moments of cinematic beauty and moments of kinetic energy all interwoven to portray the madness and passion of people, their philosophy, their greed and their conflicted personalities. This is a very ambitious film that has its' own voice and risks everything to be heard. There's no other film I can compare, although I find the style of the great masters within its' weave; Hitchcock's subjectivity, Welles' bold strokes, Antonioni's ambiguity, Bergman's reflection and Roeg's own passion for life by intercutting sex, alcohol, mysticism, ritual, poetry and everything in between. Roeg also risks alienating our sensibilities by following the path of our protagonist from act one to act two and then shifting to the journey of two other protagonists from act three to the final frame.Eureka is exciting cinema!

2013-05-14 08:27:40

A very different kind of Xanadu

This review is from: Eureka (DVD) Nicolas Roeg's "Eureka" is - at different times - exhilarating, mystifying, riveting, yet, it also needs to be said, revolting. Anyone familiar with Roeg's oeuvre (as I am) will know that in many of his films there are extremes of both explicit sex and violence. "Eureka" is no exception to the trend. What you may not have heard is that this is also one of Roeg's greatest and most criminally under-appreciated films.For years critics have complained of Roeg's elliptical narrative style; often using adjectives like "pretentious", "obscurantist" and "overblown" to describe his approach to filmmaking (and this film in particular). Yet, there are several moments of brilliance in "Eureka" that surpass anything Roeg has done before or since. I've seen the film at least 5 times and I still find new qualities and layers of meaning in subsequent viewings. This, in itself is a huge compliment to Roeg."Eureka" in many ways was a victim of bad timing (I really didn't mean that as a pun!). It was shot during the troubled David Begelman years that plagued United Artists in the early 80s. After Roeg was given a green light for financing, with a then-massive budget of eight figures, Begelman, for various reasons we won't go into here, was forced to resign, leaving the studio with an ambitious, brilliant but stupefying film that succeeding studio heads would cross the street to avoid. It played in cinemas for something like one week before being jettisoned for a few years, popping up much later in the bottoms of video store sale bins.There is much to appreciate in the film. No other director has an eye quite like Nic Roeg's - he has such a fine attention to visual detail that the simplest shot of a man carrying a talisman, or emerging ecstatically from an icy grotto can create a labyrinth of semantic possibilities. His unique cinematic and editing style is on display here; he zooms, cross-cuts, inter-cuts and employs montage in such unique and original ways that this style would become de rigueur for music video directors 15-20 years later.... Like I said... bad timing for Nic - maybe the world wasn't ready for "Eureka" in 1981.The story might be summed up simply by describing it as 'an R-rated Citizen Kane'. It concerns the ultimately doomed fate of the world's richest man, Jack McCann (a wonderful performance by Gene Hackman), his initial discovery of a plethora of gold in the Yukon, followed by the ensuing chaos that plagues his life following this discovery, as he descends into a tailspin of greed and solipsism. It also concerns his troubled relationship with Claude, a son-in-law he loathes (Rutger Hauer), and Tracy, the daughter he loves dearly (Theresa Russell).I will say that a shortcoming of the film, in my opinion is the courtroom hysterics that dominate the last 20 minutes. Replete with oblique and stupefying dialogue, this is a scene that fails primarily because it concerns the resolution of the relationship between Tracy and Claude, which is not nearly as compelling or engaging as the fascinating and complex relationship that Tracy has with her father, Jack.However, I will say that "Eureka" has to be seen to be believed. This is a truly compelling and multi-layered film that grows richer the more it is viewed. It is also not for the squeamish. What is most saddening to me is to see one of the world's truly great filmmakers descend into mediocrity and disenchantment following the large-scale rejection of this brilliant work.

2013-05-13 14:18:54

GREAT MOMENTS.....MANY FLAWS

Nicolas Roeg was once one of the GREAT directors of the 1970's. With "Performance", "Walkabout", "Don't Look Now", "The Man Who Fell To Earth" and "Bad Timing" he built a reputation for being a man who didn't compromise his vision to just pander to mere entertainment. Indeed these 5 movies are his most rewarding and challenging works. With "Eureka" Roeg begins to slip. There are some great Roegian moments in the film and the first half with Gene Hackman is compelling at times but as the film goes on it loses steam and just simply turns into a courtroom drama. From what I've read of Roeg, he likes this film very much and while it is very good in places as a whole it just doesn't have that vision that his previous work had. After this film his choices of material did not match his odd style and seem mostly like vehicles for Theresa Russell(it seems he was a better director BEFORE she came into the scene).

wilderfan 2013-04-21 19:16:23

"You'll find what you're looking for. But afterwards?"

Based loosely on an famous unsolved murder mystery (themulti-millionaire Sir Harry Oakes, who was brutally killed at hisisland retreat), Nicolas Roeg's "Eureka" takes this bare bones idea andtransforms it into one of the most daring, ambitious and insightfulfilms of all time. The film's screenwriter Paul Mayersberg packs eachline of dialogue with thematic clues. The opening half hour is so stunning that it makes your head swim- thecamera sweeps into the snowfields of British Colombia whilst StanleyMyers' hauntingly repetitive theme throbs on the soundtrack. JackMcCann (Gene Hackman) is prospecting for gold and ditches his partners.Surrounded by wolves, he gets a small talisman that he takes back to abrothel. The madam Frida fortells the future: "You'll find what you'relooking for. But afterwards?" Jack sets off and discovers the gold (a genuinely amazing sequence).His ecstasy is short lived when he returns to his dying mistress. Aburst of flame shoots forth and the film cuts to twenty years laterwhen Jack is nostalgically telling the story to his daughter Tracy(Theresa Russell). Tracy is in love with an insubstantial dilettanteClaude Mio Van Horne (Rutger Hauer), who Jack loathes. At that momentin time Tracy is looking forward, Jack is looking back. Jack is bored. He says "Once I had it all. Now I only have everything".He is aware that his daughter is his soul-clone. On the surface, theyappear quite different- he's bitter, she's a hedonist. Yet smalldetails (both admonish Jack's alcoholic wife Helen to "lay off thesauce" and they both have a stunning gift for mathematics) tell thetruth. They understand each other perfectly. Jack is under siege from a pack of wolves who come in the shape ofgangsters who want to develop Jack's island. Eventually the gangstersand Claude invade the house and Jack is brutally murdered. After thisterrifying yet beautiful sequence, the film becomes more problematic.The courtroom scenes that follow contain dialogue that spells out themovie's themes and Russell's performance is hysterical. But thepunchline as Tracy emasculates her husband is a doozy: "Claude...theydespise you because you have me and I'm worth having. They despise mebecause I'm Jack's daughter and I have too much. And of course, theystill despise Jack because he found what they're all still lookingfor". The movie atones for a lot with its gorgeous final moments asClaude paddles away. It's difficult to articulate the power this movie has. It has anextraordinary power to sweep you away- it's a crazy, violent, lovely,magical experience. It's about the human condition and it deals withissues that are almost never talked about- the price we pay for gettingwhat we want, the moments in life where we find our purpose, theessence of people that is passed down through the generations, thedifference between old and new souls. The film's main flaws (clumsydialogue) are directly linked to the main virtue (the sheeroverwhelming density of the material). Its a movie that will speak toyou personally or leave you cold (there's no middle ground) and I findit almost an affront when somebody doesn't respond positively to it.

2013-04-21 00:44:05

Hackman Does Roeg

Inspired by the sensational, unsolved Sir Harry Oakes murder case, this tantalizing film from director Nicholas Roeg stars Gene Hackman as one of the world's richest men. He found his fortune in gold in the wilds of Canada during the 1920s and now (during WW2) resides on a private island in the Bahamas.Passion has gone out of Hackman's life. His only interest these days is daughter Theresa Russell, but he's disappointed that she has married fortune hunter Rutger Hauer. Hackman is also under pressure from Miami mobsters Joe Pesci and Mickey Rourke to sell them his island, so that they can build a casino.Visually stunning, if somewhat confusing, Roeg's film is filled with fine performances and mystical elements that will compel viewers to return for a second and third look.© Michael B. Druxman

Timmy Church 2013-04-17 17:34:56

Well worth it. Spoilers Ahoy!

I loved this movie. Often surrealist wackiness doesn't do it for me,especially if blended into more straightforward narrative, but thisfilm did it, did it well, and made it work. The first act (thewackiest) is beautiful and no matter how strange totally fitting withthe rest of the movie. A lot of the previous commentors or summarizersseem to have gotten the facts of the movie a bit skewed, the McCannslive in the Bahamas during World War II, the courtroom scene (which Ithink worked perfectly) switches the focus not to Claude Maillot vanHorn but to Jack's daughter. The murder is truly nauseating and I havea pretty decent tolerance. The story is based on a true story, the oddlife and unpleasant end of Sir Harry Oakes but Roeg goes with a morepersonal story than anything I've ever heard about Oakes. In real lifehe was the victim of a dispute between HRH the Duke of Windsor,governor of the Bahamas, and the Mafia..

2013-04-16 21:57:14

Not quite vintage Roeg

It's taken a long time to be released, but at last 'Eureka' is available on DVD. There are no extras, except for the trailer, which is a shame. To my knowledge, this 1983 film has been screened only very rarely on terrestrial TV -- just once in the UK, for example, in the late 1980s on BBC2. At the time, viewers were given a great intro to the film -- i.e. how it was loosely based on true story, and how it had existed in several versions etc etc. Because of that, I've always felt this was a British film -- with people like Roeg, Jeremy Thomas, Lapotaire and many British actors in minor roles. But most of the major roles are taken by US actors -- e.g. Gene Hackman, Mickey Rourke, Joe Pesci etc.This is the same version as shown on TV -- i.e. with all the gore, nudity and voodoo -- if you prefer to stay away from that sort of thing. Although Theresa Russell has done many good things, I'm not convinced by her acting in this one. But at the time, she was one of the most beautiful women in the world, and it is surprising that Roeg is prepared to share so many views of his wife with the cinema-goer.As a plot and an atmospheric experience, I don't think this works as well as say, DON'T LOOK NOW. Once Hackman has been killed, it becomes too much of a courtroom drama. In other words, the climax comes too early in the film. Much is made of women with black hair -- McCann's wife, daughter and the hooker who guides him to the gold. And we have a literal and several figurative gold-diggers. 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. (Maybe Bill Gates has already seen this.)But I'm glad it's now available, and we come close to having nearly all Roeg's significant work out on DVD.

2013-04-15 05:11:01

Classic Roeg - multi-layered & sophisticated

Drama, based on real events, takes a poetic look at sexual politics and money. Firstrate cast conveys a sultry isolated society under attack from the mainland mafia of Miami.

2013-04-14 15:18:14

Roeg's lost meisterwerk

Nicholas Roeg's career, which spanned the seventies with one fascinatingmoody, atmospheric eye-opener after another (ie "Performance", "The ManwhoFell to Earth" and "Don't Look Now"), seemed to be annihilated with thisrelease. It is such an oddity, distributers didn't release it until 1986,once Hauer and Rourke were stars. This symbollic film about what drives aman finds Hackman reaching his lifelong goal too early in life- locating amotherload of gold. 30 years later in the Miami of the fifties, he's aboredmillionaire, waiting to die. Following his brutal, no nauseating murder,thefocus switches over to his son-in-law (Hauer) whose state of being isreminiscent of his younger self. Hauer's plight during the home stretch ispretty intense, even though it becomes a courtroom drama. A flawed, butunforgettable film with a great cast and token Roeg-esgue sexscenes.

2013-04-08 08:08:59

Enough Roeg in the first hour

This review is from: Eureka (Amazon.com Exclusive) [VHS] (VHS Tape) The first hour of this Nicolas Roeg film is vintage Roeg: otherworldly, mysterious, kinky, violent, mesmerizing, confounding. All of the good stuff. The second hour is a drawn out courtroom drama concerning the events of the first hour that is equally confounding, but negatively so. Roeg aficionados should jump at the chance to purchase this. It is a rare find on Amazon.com. I tend to watch the first hour repeatedly and skip the ending. Not a bad thing, actually, as there is enough Roeg to go around the first hour.

Polaris_DiB 2013-04-08 00:52:41

More direct process makes subtext even more meaningful

This movie is an odd one, even for Roeg fans. In one sense, it's muchmore straight-forward, linear, and narrative than his other works. It'smetaphysical attributes are also more directly stated, instead of thekaleidoscopic mix of character and occult you find in other Roeg works.On the other hand, that straightforwardness makes all of his subversiveuse of editing and narration even more effective, as this movie tendsto cause a sense of security right before dealing a blow.The plot, as it exists in relatively straight-forward form, is about aman named Jack (played by Gene Hackman) who strikes it rich findinggold (a surreal moment made all the more effective by the water-likequality of the valuable substance). The movie then jumps forward over adecade later, where Jack's wealth and happiness on his own privateisland, surprise surprise, is filled with ennui and unhappiness, madeall the more dramatic with his increasing selfishness, his constantlydrunk wife, and his daughter's (Theresa Russell proving that herpartnership with Roeg has a lot more power than mere outside-of-workrelationship) romance to a womanizing French man (Rutger Hauer, in thebest role I've seen him in since Blade Runner). Jack, since he's suchan unlikable person AND rich, is a target to everyone else'spriorities, so he gets killed. The husband of his daughter is framed,and suddenly the movie becomes a courtroom drama.The story is Roeg's most dramatic and poignant along the human level.But what seems incongruous to that aspect of the film is the Voudou,the religion, the Tarot, the Kabbalah, and all the other religious andoccult symbols and dialog welded into the frame like some kind ofscrapheap onto a statue. However, what all that symbolism reveals,along with the dialog (I think this is Mayerberg's best collaborationwith Roeg), is the fact that this movie is neither a gold-searchingadventure story, nor an idle-class ennui drama, nor a courtroomthriller... it's a meditation on life and success. But saying it likethat doesn't really give credit to the type of meditation it is, forthis is far from the typical art-house "let's deconstruct modern life"style meditation on an upper class it despises; it's much more aquestion onto the nature of what part of success is really important,and above all what part of life can actually be called life. Putting itinto the context of a metaphysical/spiritual realm makes it all themore powerful, as in most cases the camera is set at a God's-eye-view.The trial is a different type of judgment than you think. The title"Eureka" isn't just about finding gold.Finally, a note about the cinematography: along with being a much morenarrative work than Roeg's previous films, Eureka also is a lot lessflashy. Despite that, the photography is still completely stunning,more so than ever in the lighting of the trial, which is probably oneof the most reserved and subtle aspects of Roeg's film-making to date.--PolarisDiB

poohpooh 2013-04-03 22:25:26

Eureka is about desires!

Eureka is the kind of film you think you'll hate unless you give it a fairshake. It is a interplay between many characters, much like a soap opera. Itworks only if you take a general interest in the trivialities of eachcharacter. Jack McCann (Hackman) is the center of the film. His life is allabout the gold he felt he earned, and the principle that he will never haveany 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 ofthe movie trying to warn him that these men were dangerous. Jack's dilemmawasn't that he was waiting for his death, but the fact that he thought hewas invincible. Being stubborn and set in his ways, Jack refused to give into Mayakofsky. Jack was a man preoccupied with gold, but not loveless. Heseemed to love all the women in his life. Also his daughter, Spacey Tracy. Aloose young woman married to Claude (Hauer). Tracy had her head in theclouds, and wanted to live in a fantasy world. She did not provoke thefights between her father and Claude, but instigated them. She wanted Claudeto fight as a proof of his love. Claude was most elusive. You never get hisangle. If he loved Tracy or was just using her. She even used the witnessstand as a way of finding out where Claude stood with her instead of pinningfor the guilty ones involved in the tragic end of her father. (Claude didhis own defense in court!) The movie has it's funny points. Like the dinnertable scene at the McCann's where Jack makes some insulting remarks to theguests. Some of the best scenes involve Aurelio D'Amato, played by MickeyRourke. He's cast in another glossed over film where he is perfect, butforgotten. D'Amato is a yiddish associate of Mayakofsky. And one of the mainguys pestering Jack to sign the Luna Bay deal.(Mayakofsky wanted to build acasino on it.) There are scenes where D'Amato is begging Jack to sign. Hisbaby 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 seethis movie. And its not surprising he has a night with Tracy. Tracy lovedClaude, but how could she resist D'Amato? Eureka is more of a film about thedesires of man. Each character wants something, and they spend the entirefilm in pursuit of those things.

2013-04-03 18:06:13

Eureka with Gene Hackman

One would imagine that after the fact, Gene Hackman was not happy he had played lead in this movie. The directing must have been non-existent - the camera work bounces all over the place (distractingly so) -- the plot is hard to follow. Glad I did not pay a full price for this - part way through I shut it off... later tried to finish it. Gene Hackman is usually in great movies - in this case, Forget it.

harry lime 2013-03-30 03:30:53

always described as flawed

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

2013-03-29 06:41:00

Early Mickey Rourke with an amazing Gene Hackman

This review is from: Eureka (DVD) A little known and wonderful disturbing drama, but be ready, its a tough one to watch. Strange indeed and ruthless in it's approach. I think Mickey Rourke is brilliant in this while Gene Hackman rocks the bad guy role. A must see for collectors of the dark, cult, film variety.