runamokprods Hailed as a masterpiece by some, and a near one by others, I liked it quite a bit, and never felt bored in spite of it's nearly 4 hour running time. I was quite moved – to the point of tears - by the end. It looks and feels like no other movie I've seen, shot in a shifting sepia tone, with very little dialogue, and long silent takes. It's an intimate epic. Sort of a Japanese version of a Terrence Malick film. A young brother and sister, and a bus driver are the only survivors of a random bus-jacking by a madman. The three retreat from the world. But two years later the bus driver seeks out the brother and sister – living alone and mute despite their youth – and the long, slow process of healing begins. As much as I liked a lot of it, certain plot twists felt clunky or heavy handed, as did some of the dialogue. A movie so based in unspoken emotion loses something when the themes suddenly become too literal, in word or action. But, those are things that might bother me less on a second viewing, when I was more prepared for this unique, odd, challenging film.

federovsky There are several fine ideas here: that a shocking, arbitrary incident can taint you in the eyes of yourself and society; that a whole swathe of your life can be spent in a sepia daze; and that a colourful epiphany can release you. This is entirely a concept film buoyed up by these ideas.A successful effort? Not really. It is shot in a bleached pinkish wash which either gives it an ultra-cool arty look - or a corny Adobe Premiere filter look - and the gimmick may well account for the film's length - a lot of shots were probably included that would normally have been ditched for being too dull.The 3 1/2 hours length was designed to let it slowly seep into you. Problem was, it had made all its points, done all its seepage, in the first half hour and I'm not sure if the extra three hours added anything at all except the opportunity for you to build up a catalogue of peeves.Aoyama loves the device of showing you something you can't make head or tail of until some time later when it is explained. It's important not to be too obvious in a film, but this trick, done repeatedly, can make it hard work. On top of that, many of the silent, almost motionless scenes we are shown seem interchangeable with almost anything of our own choice. There are far too many arbitrary, meaningless scenes.And the psychology is frail. I didn't feel the traumatic near-death incident at the beginning (a bus-jacking) was anywhere near enough to make two children stop speaking and turn someone into an improbable serial killer. So I didn't have essential sympathy for the characters and that was fatal. Being so determined to be arty, the film didn't allow us to get to know them properly - no close ups, only an impassive wide angle that physically alienates. There were also periods, especially in the early part of the film where I had trouble telling one character from another as scenes switched erratically between two families.And one final thing I hated: a character had an annoying hacking cough for much of the film - I was furious when it finally turned out that there was no significance to it at all. Possibly the actor really did have a bad cough so they built it in.Basicaly dull, and including some big mistakes (like the ultra-wide format), I only give it a special-mention certificate for being different.

Mnemosyne-9 the first thing i heard about this movie was that it would be a 3.5 hours long black and white movie with a minimum of dialogues. that was all i needed to know to impatiently anticipate seeing Eureka. it took a while and it only showed in three cinema's here in belgium, in one cinema each month for they had only one copy of the film, so when i heard it played i found myself lucky to finally see it with a showing rate of once a day only five days/week. a bit surprised but then again could've guessed not a lot of people where in the (very)small theatre. as for most movies i anxiously await i held my breath, but this one captured me from the start. ok, better said: after the first scene is over you get involved with the three survivors of the bus-jacking, the driver and two kids - who never speak again from that day on and seem to live on their own (no one seems to know what ever happened to their parents... which is great, i love certain things that aren't explained in the movies,). but now i give away more than i like when writing about movies (this thing about the parents isn't even that important to the story, hence the give-away of this detail) *also, note that i saw this movie in september 2001 and never found it again to see or buy (if anyone has it and wants to get rid of it...)* the film is split up in three major parts. the first describes the fall and 'resurrection' of the driver, the second focusses on the children and how the three meet up again and try to bring their lives back into balance, the last part takes you on a final road trip through the country in a bus turned camper as a final solution type of thing. the last seconds hold a nice little surprise! (k, not a big o' deal - allthough it has this particular distinct meaning,wich i found quite amusing! -and will b lost for 99% of the viewers- the meaning that is) i know the duration was a turn of for a lot of people and i guess i can understand why most find Eureka boooring, but people like that never ever see these things in their whole perspective. if this movie were to've been made more up-tempo'd, it would've lost it's charm toootally. stories like these won't be told just that easily, it has to be absorbed in it's entirety, so one can feel every emotion intended, also gives you a bit time to think about things as you see them unfold instead of afterwords when you have to recollect the whole movie (which i did anyway but hey) this is a must-see-movie when being a moviejunk (especially the anti-hollywood-cinemaniacs) are u an emotional type? with eyes for beauty? see it.

jm I have this movie on dvd and I can now say that the more I watch itthe more I like it. This is top cinema. The scene when the mother of the kids wave tothem or the one when the mother leaves the house to never comeback and we see like a tube with a liquid inside which swingsback and forward are just great. The performing actors and thecinematography is excellent. Very beautiful indeed. Yes, perhaps a bit long but it's justified. This is a good example ofa movie which has a low pace but which is right, precise, goodand relevant to the subject and not, for instance, like the movies ofTheo Angelopoulus which are simply unbearable and extremelypretentious. In cannes 2000 Eureka won the fipresci award. It is true that theyear 2000 was a tough one to win because of the high level of theproductions on competition but I have some doubts why "dancer inthe dark" won to movies like this one or "in the mood for love", themasterpiece of Wong Kar Wei Japanese cinema is producing great movies. This is anotherexample of it.