MovieChat Forums > Eureka (1983) Discussion > “I 'll never make a nickel off another m...

“I 'll never make a nickel off another man’s sweat!”


Intense cinema.


Hackman, Hauer, Rourke, for starters, and Cavan Kendall, he had a most unique face, way out about him: glad he got to go out with Sexy Beast.

reply

A fascinating film as most of Nicolas Roeg's work that I've seen
but also a bit tedious and overwhelmingly melodramatic.

Maybe it's just me, maybe I didn't connect to all those deep emotions
of guilt, love and revenge while watching the film.

But fantastic locations and the story is on top level.

Isn't this film a typical early 1980s film - I mean esthetically.
Like lots of love-making in dimmed red light and mad voodoo scenes.


.

reply

Roeg is putting Martin Amis’ novel Night Train up on the big screen next.

Going to be fantastic.



Cast of Nolte, and Toby Jones for starters.

reply

don't think it-- the movie will ever happen---roeg is hollywood poison

reply

More like ridiculously overwrought than intense. It´s amazing how low Roeg fell with this one compared to his 1970´s stuff - most jarringly, the editing rhythms and strategies that used to work so sublimely in Don´t Look Now or The Man Who Fell To Earth, only serve to make the film seem incoherent without adding anything of substance (the first 15-20 minutes in particular are one helluva mess). Feels like Roeg was just complicating things for the sake of it instead of communicating a well worked out vision, never getting a particularly firm handle on things. It also suffers from poor character development as, despite numerous expository rants, the motivations behind the characters´ actions remain unconvincing - even Hackman fails to invest Jack McCann with the necessary amount of truth and bring him to life as a real, three-dimensional person. Of course, it woulda been a wonder if he ´had´ achieved that because the dialogue given to him as well as others, is terribly awkward, stilted and kinda silly for the better part of the picture. And what the hell´s with the terribly solemn and ponderous tone the film has? Where did the understated grace of his earlier work disappear? And then there´re these self consciously and provocatively in-your-face scenes of nudity and orgies. And there´s the final act that offers just about the worst courtroom scene ever filmed, so ludicrous and cheesy it really has to be seen to be believed. In short, there aren´t too many things in this film that actually worked (well, I guess it does present numerous artful shots of beautiful scenery). I´m sure something compelling could have been made of this material, but this one´s an utter - if sometimes interesting - failure. In fact, it kinda reminded me of some f-cked up dreck Argento used to make around the same time.

Seems what they´ve always been saying about Roeg completely having lost his touch after 1980, is unfortunately true.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply