Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Paul Verhoeven has one of the strangest oeuvres of any major director: he started off making art-house films in his native Netherlands before moving to Hollywood where he began making subversive genre pieces which are often seen as mere entertainments by the mainstream crowd. 1983's The Fourth Man was the last film he made before moving to the U.S. and it seems to have been a transitional film for him.

From the beginning of The Fourth Man it's clear that the film will be seen from the perspective of the famous albeit impoverished author Gerard. In a seeming homage to Carol Reed's similarly titled 1949 film The Third Man the film begins with an author making a trip to speak to a crowd of literature enthusiasts. The similarities end there, however, as Gerard runs into no major complications before arriving at the auditorium and the speech itself goes fairly smoothly. In spite of the relative ease with which he completes this function we know that the author is somewhat troubled as he has realistic fantasies about murdering his roommate before leaving his house and he also has a surreal fantasy involving a hotel he sees advertised and a detached eyeball growing out of a door's peephole. That he sometimes has trouble keeping his fantasies separate from reality is made all the more clear when an anecdote he tells is exposed as untrue and he admits that he "lie{s} the truth until {he} no longer knows whether something did or didn't happen."

The Fourth Man is full of surreal fantasies and dreams which are made all the more disturbing because it's very easy to see how they relate to events which we have seen occur and because they sometimes foreshadow events which haven't occurred yet. Between the effectiveness of the unreal sequences and Verhoeven's careful editing style this ends up being the most atmospheric film this side of Don't Look Now and like that film this one is full of ambiguity. Unlike that film The Fourth Man is also perversely funny as Gerard's deeply held Catholic beliefs seep into every aspect of his life including sexuality. He naturally associates a female hair stylist he knows intimately with the Biblical Delilah though he fears she'll remove an even more important symbol of masculinity with her scissors. In an erotic fantasy sequence that would make Luis Bunuel blush he substitutes a man he's attracted to for a life size statue of Christ on the cross.

The Fourth Man is a horror film which manages to bring the viewer into the mind of the protagonist while still maintaining a certain ambiguity: it certainly seems as if Gerard is in danger but it may just be more of his "lying the truth." The film is also full of both subtle and not so subtle visual symbolism which helps make it a unique and satisfying cinematic experience.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, "We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, "I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The "reasoning" behind each plot turn and new "clue" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for "never shutting up." She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a "Dr." title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, "Don't you ever shut up?" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy....
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What's worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he's starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it's carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can't help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they're all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is 12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can't be a cent above 1000.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
by Dane Youssef

A gang of crooks. The perfect plan. It all goes wrong. They're in trouble. The police are outside. They're cornered. What are they gonna do now?

Sound familiar?

The movie seems like it's trying to be a combination of the acting workshop, the "indie" film and the theater.

It's the kind of things that actors love--it's kind of like a workshop or a play because it mostly consists of tight focusing on the actors acting... acting angry, tense, scared, conversing, scheming, planning--giving the performers a lot of free range to really ham it all up.

A trio of crooks, one leader, one goon, one brother, come up with a big heist scheme... and a monkey wrench is thrown into the works. To top things off, there's a bit of a "fender-bender" and one of the crooks in flung through the back of the windshield.

The cops are on their tail and they stumble into a bar named poetically (and leadenly) "Dino's Last Chance."

Spacey, as a director, tries to keep the focus on the actors' performances and delivery of dialouge. He pans over to a bright passion-red cigarette ad of a smoking and smoldering Bogart. And he keeps all the violence off-screen, really.

I think that was a mistake. Focusing on the intensity and gruesome violent scenes would have given the movie some edge.

The problem with the movie is that it moves too slow and suffers from miscasting in almost every role. Matt Dillon ("Drugstore Cowboy" and "Wild Things") seems too young and too idealistic to be the leader of this gang.

Gary Sinese seems to brooding and deep in thought to be a spineless tag-along with these guys and Joe Mantaga is effective as the traditional routine foul-swearing mad-dog police lieutenant who's all thumbs, but he isn't given anything to really do here.

William Fischter is the only actor who is believable in his role as a brainless grunt who just wants to spill blood.

And the crooks are in a tense situation where they either go to jail or they try to think of some way out of this.

Spacey lacks the ability to create a lot of tension and keep it going. The characters are mostly chatting away, trying to think of a plan... and they're to calm and too articulate. There's even a scene where the crooks are playing pool with a whole swarm of armed cops right outside, ready to strike. At one point, one of the crooks even call the police who are right outside the bar. Oh brother. Oh bother.

These cops are going to either blow them away or going to lock them up. Shouldn't the holed-up crooks be a little scared, a little uneasy? Meanwhile, all the real action is happening inside.

Someone whips out a gun, a baseball bat, which leads to an ugly confrontation off-screen and there's one more casualty that happens that's... well, kinda sad. But...

Faye Dunaway also should have spent more time with a dialect coach, improving on her New Orleans accent. Skeet Ullrich is fine in a smaller part.

A cop listening in reaches for a pack of matches at the absolute worst time is a nice look. And so is a scene where someone goes right through the rear windshield.

The dialouge is obviously trying to go for a David Mamet approach and it's as profane, but never as realistic or as insightful.

The movie feels like too much of what it really is... a really low-budget movie with an actor behind the camera for the first time directing other actors from a script that's "not bad, but needs a few more re-writes." Spacey shows he's not a terrible director, but he lacks a sort of feel for "shaping a movie" and it feels like he's just filming actors act.

These actors are all talented and could work with the material, but they all feel out of place. As I said before, the movie really suffers from miscasting.

I don't mean that the wrong actors were cast. I think they found just the right cast, but placed them in all the wrong roles. I think switching some of the roles would've helped immensely.

Having veteran mob actor Joe Mantagna play the leader of the pack, Gary Sinese as the angry police lieutenant outside on his bullhorn giving orders and barking at his troops, keeping Fischter in his "bloodthirsty goon" part and Matt Dillion as the sacrificial lamb. That would have been a big improvement.

When some actors direct, it works. They can even win Oscars for it. But a lot of the time, when actors direct, they have a tendency to just focus on the performances. Just shoot the actors acting.

Sometimes it works... but they need a good showcase for it. An excuse for it.

Hostage situations are all pretty much the same in real life just like coming-of-age stories so it's only natural that movies about them will go from point A to point B as well.

There are a few really great entries into this genre.' Spacey himself appeared in a similar movie about hostage situations: "The Negotiator."

This certainly won't become a cult classic, let alone one of AFI's 100. Still, it does have a few nice moments and personal touches, but in the end, it's instantly forgettable and the kind of movie that would play best on regular TV. It's just not worth going out of your way to see.

I give a 3 out of 10.

Spacey's other directorial credit, "Beyond The Sea" was reportedly a better effort. Hmmm... maybe it's true. You need to fail before you succeed.

by Dane Youssef