Eureka (1984)

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

How sad is this?

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Yeah !! Faulkner is still a rare class of his very own, the most important American Great Novelist ( with maybe only Melville ) , still there has been NOBODY else after him in the USA, oh yes I can motivate my passion for him, he's my favorite USA-writer and in my top 3 of international writers, and I always wondered WHY no filmmaker ever tried to translate his 'writing' ( one B-film I remember, and not bad, but too SMALL ) I mean, liberalistic capitalism is INVENTED by the USA, its greatest stories are to be found here and nowhere else but did any artist try?? ? !! I've waited for years for a epic film about the greedy new yuppies of Faulkner's Snopes, but nobody even tried just until after decades of stasis finally comes Anderson and D.D.Lewis magnus opus: YES, my Faulkner finally on the big screen and how great it is , it's not officially about Snopes or based on any Faulkner , but genetically the very same and the only depiction of Snope-mentality we have till now, bravo Anderson, finally a true USA- masterpiece since 30 or 40 years ( since Apocalypse Now ) ! Well then , this Roeg film is the totally overlooked older brother of TWBBlood, same theme, the individual search for gold/money , and he has own Snopes around him : R.Hauer and M.Rourke play it terrificly .Roeg's greatest masterpiece is my favorite of his films and since years on a steady number 2 of my 'final'list ( with others like A.Rubjlev and Eclisse). I'm actually glad so many people don't care for it or don't ( try to) understand it, so it remains 'totally mine' and I won't make publicity ........See it if you like, or don't......probably you will NOT like it at ALL, it has everything to look like a big piece of small kitsh. Theresa Russel's overplaying ( I so adore this actress ...) and the 'weird murder' ( in reality it was weirder ) and an abbondance of cabbala, voodoo, alchemist symbols ( the butterfly brooche !!)in every corner of the film whether in words,designs, or clothes ,it will make you SCREAM, unless you know some about the alchemy of human soul, and its question "what gold am I looking for?".Oh ...it's also VERY static, theatrical, slow, very clumsy unrealistic dialogues , you'll feel almost ashamed to watch. Conclusion: AVOID IT. My Roeg's list : 1: Eureka 2: The Man W F On Earth 3: Walkabout 4: Performance 5: Insignificance + Bad Timing ( Theresa's masterpieece ) 6: Don't Look Now ( very overrated )

Jack McCann is a Klondike prospector who one day in 1925, after 15 years of searching, falls into a mountain of gold.He becomes one of the wealthiest men in the world.In 1945 he lives in luxury on a Caribbean island.He's married to Helen, who drinks a lot.His daughter Tracy is married to a man named Claude, who Jack doesn't trust.And there are some Miami mobsters who want his island to build a casino.It seems to him that everybody is after his money.Eureka (1983) is directed by Nicolas Roeg.The story is loosely based on the true murder of Sir Harry Oakes in the Bahamas in 1943.Gene Hackman does a solid job as Jack McCann.Without Hackman's performance this would be a much poorer film.Today this great, now retired actor turns 80, so congratulations.Theresa Russell is great as his daughter, Tracy McCann Maillot Van Horn.Rutger Hauer is terrific as Claude Maillot Van Horn.Jane Lapotaire does very good job as the wife Helen.Mickey Rourke is marvelous as Aurelio D'Amato.Ed Lauter is great as Charles Perkins.Joe Pesci is brilliant as Mayakofsky.The movie offers some decent drama, especially due to Jack McCann's character.Hackman's character seems like a rich man, but yet he's poor.His fear for his wealth and his soul make him that way, alienating him from those that are close to him.The scene where Jack is being murdered, is most brutal.His corpse is being partially incinerated and strewn with feathers.The movie could have been better, sure.I had the greatest time in the beginning, watching him searching for that gold.But nevertheless, quite fascinating movie.

Despite intermittent evidence of Roeg's usual quality, this film can be seen as the beginning of his decline: it's interesting, certainly ambitious but, ultimately, unsatisfying. Surprisingly enough, it's not as cryptic as the director's earlier work though still not for all tastes (particularly given an irrelevant voodoo dance sequence involving a snake-infested orgy). The script is by ex-film critic Paul Mayersberg who had already written THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976) for Roeg. The film, which could comfortably be divided into three parts, is aided by a plethora of talent both in front - Gene Hackman, Theresa Russell, Rutger Hauer, Jane Lapotaire, Ed Lauter, Mickey Rourke, Joe Pesci 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 two scenes that are particularly memorable: a despairing prospector blowing his head off in front of Hackman and, then, when the latter discovers the gold mine - an almost mystical sequence; however, one still has to contend with Helena Kallianotes' eccentric performance as a fortune teller/whore who befriends Hackman. The second part, in which we see Hackman twenty years on as a tycoon with a family - all-powerful but emotionally void: this section creates some added tension with Hackman's clashes with playboy Hauer (who marries his daughter, Russell, without her father's consent) and unscrupulous business partners Pesci and Rourke, and culminates with his violent death (quite a graphic sequence, occurring about 80 minutes into the 130-minute picture!) at the hands of the latters' thugs. The third and final part, then, involving Hauer's trial for Hackman's murder is the least compelling - given the latter's obvious absence, but also the silly contrivances which dominate this section (and particularly the preposterous scene of Russell's hysterics on the witness stand, with Hauer acting as his own defense attorney!).EUREKA was shot in 1981 but the company that financed it couldn't make head or tail of it and decided to shelve the film; eventually, it was released in the U.K. in 1983 (I own a copy of the "Movies & Video" magazine from that time, which carries a reasonably favorable review of the film) and, according to "Leonard Maltin's Film Guide", didn't open in the U.S. until 1985!

Already in "Performance" and in "Don't look now",Roeg showed a pretentious,show-off and gaudy style.The latter film was saved,however,by Daphne DuMaurier-inspired screenplay ,Venice setting and Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland's skills.Here,absolutely nothing.The movie fluctuates with a complete incoherence from a genre to another.The first fifteen minutes recall some kind of remake of "Come and get it" ,an old movie(1936)by William Wyler and Howard Hawks.Then it leaves the adventure films genre for the soap opera,complete with grumpy rich man (It might be Hackman's worst movie)frustrated wife playing tarots,rebel daughter,and French son-in-law with frame of mind(Yes I am a coward!).Then the soap opera turns into a film noir ,featuring as a highlight,so to speak, a vaudou orgy.And finally what a surprise,a trial(You could have been an artist!,Russel says to her father's killer hubby)The colors evoke postcards,the interpretation is either theatrical (Russel and her mother)or inexpressive(Hauer,Rourke,the latter would do better with "Angel heart") As I said,a horrible,horrible,horrible movie.