Japanese screenwriter, composer and director Shinji Aojama's seventh feature film which he adapted from his own novel, edited and co-scored with composer Isao Yamada, is a Japan-France co-production which premiered In competition at the 53rd Cannes Film Festival in 2000, was screened in the Contemporary World Cinema section at the 25th Toronto International Film Festival in 2000 and produced by Japanese screenwriter and producer Takenori Sentô. It tells the story about Kozue Tamura and her brother Naoki Tamura who lives on the countryside in Kyushu, Japan with their father and mother. One day while they are on their way to school, their school bus is hijacked by an armed killer who goes mad. Though surviving with the local bus driver named Makoto Sawai, the siblings are traumatized by the tragic incident. As life goes on, they try to get back to normal and so does the bus driver who is as traumatized as them, but all of the sudden Kozue and Naoki are abandoned by their parents.Distinctly and acutely directed by Japanese filmmaker Shinji Aojama, this quietly paced and reflective voyage which is narrated from various point's of view, draws a deeply humane and heartrending portrayal of a singular relationship between three individuals who are struggling to regain their faith in life and the parts of themselves that they lost after having witnessed a horrendous massacre. While notable for it's naturalistic milieu depictions, profound sepia and black-and-white cinematography by Japanese cinematographer Masaki Tamura, production design by Japanese production designer and art director Takeshi Shimizu and use of sound, this nuanced and character-driven road-movie which depicts three internal studies of character contains a fine score by the director and composer Isao Yamada which emphasizes it's lingering atmosphere.This perceptive, universal and poignant psychological drama which examines themes like interpersonal relations, interpersonal communication, identity, survival and redemption, is impelled by it's cogent narrative structure, mindful dialog and the remarkable acting performances by Japanese actors Koji Yakusho, Ken Mitsuishi and brother and sister Masuru Miyazaki and Aoi Miyazaki. A compassionate, insightful and epic story which gained, among other awards, the FIPRESCI Prize and the Prize of the Ecumenical Jury at the 53rd Cannes International Film Festival in 2000.

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.

There is an excellent 100-minute film in Eureka, but this monster is an exercise in tedium that will appeal only to a particular niche of film buffs. Other reviewers point out that this is mainly a visual experience, with movie tributes to the likes of Hou Hsiao-Hsien for the anoraks to delight in spotting. But nobody seems able to tell me WHY it is so long. There is one scene where the bus pulls out of a diner's car park, and drives up the road that extends into the distance, over the hill and out of sight. Fixed camera wide shot, no cuts. It takes 2 minutes 40 seconds - why? We know where the bus is going, and the frame is not particularly interesting to look at. Maybe there is a deeper meaning to such anti-editing statements that I am missing, but it looks like Aoyama just couldn't be bothered cutting the thing properly. Two stars for the cinematography.

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.