Viewing DE VIERDE MAN (aka THE FOURTH MAN) is a slightly unsettling and rather fascinating experience. It's a very tight and intense psychological mystery/thriller from Netherlands's Paul Verhoeven. He directed this film just before he got big with his "free-ticket to Hollywood"-movie FLESH + BLOOD. In a lot of user-comments on this site I noticed the mentioning of Alfred Hitchcock. Indeed, this movie might very well be Hitchcockian, but I also noticed touches of early Cronenberg (the visceral), flavors of David Lynch (surreal story-linked visuals) and even Roman Polanski (plot-wise set-up). Funny thing is that the movies by those directors I was thinking of while watching DE VIERDE MAN weren't made until after 1983, the year of release of THE FOURTH MAN. So go figure.
Very much credit indeed must be given to the story of the original novel by Gerard Reve this movie is based on. Gerard Reve is also the fictional name of the main character (a tormented writer, played by Jeroen Krabbé, balancing on the dangerous line of a severe psychosis). Now, has anybody stopped and thought about the fact that the word "rêve" is French for "dream"? And the film does feature a lot of dream-like/nightmarish sequences, often to that extend that you don't always know for sure if Gerard is awake or dreaming himself. Could this be coincidence...? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so. Renée Soutendijk is pretty amazing as the leading lady (in a rather demanding role). She sometimes seems to be guilty of over-acting (in a subtle way). But that aspect was clearly intentional to portray the character she plays, since as this movie progresses, you become unsure about what to actually think of this lady and her intentions. Proves again what an excellent actress she is. I might add that the movie contains also several scenes portraying full frontal male & female nudity, as well as some rather explicit sex-scenes (and you will even notice that some scenes and aspects clearly were the blueprints of scenes later to be shot for Verhoeven's BASIC INSTINCT).
Another aspect this movie has is a lot of symbolism and biblical references/images, which supposedly made the film thoroughly hated by some conservative/catholic movements at the time of its European release. Either way, it makes the movie worthy of a second viewing. Now, someone recently told me he had grave misgivings about DE VIERDE MAN. One of them being that the film supposedly manoeuvers itself into a position where it needs the divine intervention of the Virgin Mary to resolve itself. I myself have big issues with the way Catholicism has been, and still is sometimes, portrayed in many movies in any genre (so not only when it comes to religiously themed horror movies). But surprisingly, I had no misgivings whatsoever when it comes to THE FOURTH MAN. Although the Virgin Mary-aspect in the plot did make me scratch my head at one point, I also had fun with it, in a way. I think the keyword as to why it didn't bother me at all is 'duality'. Because, this movie works on two levels. Although 'divine intervention' might have resolved the plot-line from the protagonist's point of view... on the other hand: the movie implies that all this might have been the delirious ramblings of a raving madman. And that's the fun part: You never know for sure. And then there's the question: Could it be that Gerard Reve was somehow receiving distorted visions of things to come... like receiving omens? At one point in the movie, Gerard even tries to fool Christine into believing he is clairvoyant. The way he is playing Christine in that particular scene is exquisite to behold.
So with its compelling story, convincing acting performances and adequate direction, DE VIERDE MAN is a very much recommended viewing indeed (especially if you enjoy a solid European psychological horror film). But make sure you see the original Dutch version (not the dubbed one).

I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.
Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.
Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.
Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.
Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.