input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: 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 Krabbe, balancing on the dangerous line of a severe psychosis). Now, has anybody stopped and thought about the fact that the word "reve" 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. Renee 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).
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Final Score: 1.8 (out of 10)

After seeing 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' I must have been on a big Eliza Dushku kick when I rented this movie. 'Soul Survivors' is a junk "psychological thriller" dressed up like a trashy teen slasher flick - even to the point of having a masked killer stalk a cast of young up-and-comers like Dushku, Wes Bentley (American Beauty), Casey Affleck (Drowning Mona) and likable star Melissa Sagemiller. Luke Wilson is also in there, ridiculously miscast as a priest. The movie, the brainchild of writer/director Stephen Carpenter, seems like a mutant offspring of 'Open Your Eyes' or 'Vanilla Sky' and movies where a character (and the audience) is caught in a world of dillusion caused by an accident/death. The movie keeps churning out perplexing images and leaves us in a state of confusion the entire running time until this alternate reality is finally resolved. I don't think these movies are that entertaining- by their very nature- to begin with, but 'SS' is rock-bottom cheap trash cinema any way you slice it. The visuals, the script, the acting and the attempt at any originality all are throwaway afterthoughts to movies like this. Plus, it's PG-13 so it doesn't even deliver the gore or T&A to sustain it as a guilty pleasure (even the unrated version is tame). I had heard that the movie contained some "hot" shower scene between Dushku & Sagemiller. As the movie fell apart in front of me and all other entertainment seemed to be lost I found myself waiting patiently for the shower scene - at least I would get something out of this. Then it comes: the two girls get paint on their shirts, they jump in the shower fully clothed and scrub it off. That's it. People thought this was hot? 'Soul Survivors' is one of those drop-dead boring movies that is so weak and inept that it is hard to have ANY feelings at all toward it. It puts out nothing and is hardly worth writing about. In the end it leaves us empty. Carpenter's finale is a mess of flashing light and pounding sound and that's probably the most lively part. It will no doubt be making the rounds as a late night staple on USA or the Sci-Fi Channel, due to it's low cost and PG-13 rating - and that's probably best for it.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Not sure why this film was advertised as a wild, quirky, laugh filled comedy. There is not much in this movie that will entertain, nor amuse the moviegoer. Annette Bening (whose acting was touted as being Oscar worthy) comes off here as mannered, with her performance seeming routine. Brian Cox's character is confusing and irritating, and the lead playing Augusten Joseph Cross appears to simply not have the personality to carry his role. The best thing about the film is Evan Rachel Wood, but she is not enough to endorse this boring, unsavory film.

The film disappeared quickly and it seems with good reason. I found some of the scenes distasteful (the scene with Brian Cox and his just utilized toilet rivals some of the worst scenes in 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' and 'The Squid and the Whale'), some embarrassing, and most of them unsettling. I found the whole experience a waste of time. Don't you waste your time
....
output answer:
negative