I don't know if I'd consider it a masterpiece of not, but it's damn near close; it's extremely well made, artistic, suspenseful, intricately plotted, thematically challenging and full of bleak foreshadowing and sexual-religious imagery. There's also some great camera-work from Jan de Bont, an atmospheric score from Loek Dikker and outstanding acting from Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk, the latter giving one of the most sneaky, subtle 'femme fatale' performance I've ever seen. Like many other European movies, this movie has an unashamed, non-judgmental attitude toward sex, nudity and the complexities of sexuality and has zero reservations about mixing it all up with religious and/or surrealistic (some would say blasphemous) images. In other words, if you can't bear the thought of seeing a lust-driven homosexual envisioning the object of his carnal desire as Jesus crucified on the cross before the two of them go at it inside a cemetery crypt then this might not be the movie for you. What surprised me more is how this bizarre movie managed to completely dodge being a pretentious mess. It mixes the abstract/surreal/parallel fantasy-reality scenes and somehow makes it all work. Like any good mystery, you can see the pieces slowly falling into place as the movie progresses. There is NOT an out-of-left-field resolution here. The movie has direction, there's no needless filler and once it concludes, you begin to understand the purpose of what may have confused you earlier. If you like the work of Ken Russell and David Lynch, I can almost guarantee you will love this movie. Hell, if you have no idea who they even are, you still might like it.
I'm not going to spoil the plot by getting too detailed, but the film's opening shot - through a web as a spider catches its prey - sets the stage as Krabbé, as unshaven, smug, bisexual writer Gerard Reve (interestingly, also the name of the writer whose novel this is based on) crosses paths with a wealthy, mysterious, sexy woman named Christine (Soutendijk, melding androgynous stylings with Simone Simon-like innocence/cuteness that's pretty unnerving), who may be a literal 'black widow' responsible for the deaths of her three previous husbands. The two become lovers and move in with one another, but we're led to believe (through Christine's bizarre behavior and the frequent appearances of another woman - played by Geert de Jong - who may or may not actually exist) something terrible is boiling under the surface. When another of Christine's lovers, the young and "beautiful" Herman (Thom Hoffman), shows up at the house, things take an unexpected turn. And that's all you need to know.
THE 4TH MAN was a huge art-house success in much of the world, but didn't make it over to the US until 1984, where it was awarded the Best Foreign Film of the year from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The most common video is the Media release, which has been horribly dubbed. Try to avoid that one and head straight for the newer subtitled Anchor Bay DVD release. Since coming to America, Verhoeven's career has had its ups and downs. He has made a few decent films (Flesh & Blood, RoboCop) and some lousy ones (Showgirls). In fact, Verhoeven's big hit Basic Instinct is almost like a less interesting, junior league version of The Fourth Man. Soutendjik also tried her hand at acting in America and since GRAVE SECRETS (1989) and EVE OF DESTRUCTION (1991) were the best offers she was getting, she headed right back home to the Netherlands.

I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.
But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.
Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.
Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.
Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.
But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.
Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.