Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Polaris_DiB This movie is an odd one, even for Roeg fans. In one sense, it's much more straight-forward, linear, and narrative than his other works. It's metaphysical attributes are also more directly stated, instead of the kaleidoscopic mix of character and occult you find in other Roeg works. On the other hand, that straightforwardness makes all of his subversive use of editing and narration even more effective, as this movie tends to cause a sense of security right before dealing a blow.The plot, as it exists in relatively straight-forward form, is about a man named Jack (played by Gene Hackman) who strikes it rich finding gold (a surreal moment made all the more effective by the water-like quality of the valuable substance). The movie then jumps forward over a decade later, where Jack's wealth and happiness on his own private island, surprise surprise, is filled with ennui and unhappiness, made all the more dramatic with his increasing selfishness, his constantly drunk wife, and his daughter's (Theresa Russell proving that her partnership with Roeg has a lot more power than mere outside-of-work relationship) romance to a womanizing French man (Rutger Hauer, in the best role I've seen him in since Blade Runner). Jack, since he's such an unlikable person AND rich, is a target to everyone else's priorities, 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 and occult symbols and dialog welded into the frame like some kind of scrapheap onto a statue. However, what all that symbolism reveals, along with the dialog (I think this is Mayerberg's best collaboration with Roeg), is the fact that this movie is neither a gold-searching adventure story, nor an idle-class ennui drama, nor a courtroom thriller... it's a meditation on life and success. But saying it like that doesn't really give credit to the type of meditation it is, for this is far from the typical art-house "let's deconstruct modern life" style meditation on an upper class it despises; it's much more a question onto the nature of what part of success is really important, and above all what part of life can actually be called life. Putting it into the context of a metaphysical/spiritual realm makes it all the more 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 more narrative work than Roeg's previous films, Eureka also is a lot less flashy. Despite that, the photography is still completely stunning, more so than ever in the lighting of the trial, which is probably one of the most reserved and subtle aspects of Roeg's film-making to date.--PolarisDiB

jonathanmelia 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.

MARIO GAUCI 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!

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