input: When it comes to Paul Verhoeven and erotic thrillers, most people think of "Basic Instinct" and some maybe of "Showgirls". But Verhoeven has made his best erotic thriller years before these two movies: "De Vierde Man". This film is mesmerizing and mindblowing - and above all the story is absolutely plausible, which makes the whole experience even more intense. The performances by Jeroen Krabbe, Renee Soutendijk and Thom Hoffman are exceptional, and Verhoeven's direction does the rest. "De Vierde Man" makes even "Basic Instinct" look quite tame... It can't get much better than this, a true classic of erotic nightmare cinema. 10 out of 10, at least...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting.

** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.

It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.

I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?

The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.

Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative