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).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Dick Tracy was originally a comic book created in 1931 by Chester Gould. He is a plainclothes detective who tracks down a crew of villains, ranging from all types of visually original characters such as Flattop to The Blank to Big Boy Caprice. (These villains became so popular in the 40's that Warner Bros. created their own take on the Tracy-style villains in such cartoons as Daffy Duck) Tracy's comics were known for their liberal use of gunplay and the up-to-date technology advances (notably the wristwatch communicator), which got their fair share of screen time on this excellent movie. The music was done wonderfully by Danny Elfman, and the original songs by Madonna were interesting, but they were not the high point for her career. It's weird because as you watch the film and see the suspenseful moments, the film feels so much like Batman because of Elfman's memorable sound to his pieces.

I love the tough-talking kid, Pacino's acting as Big Boy Caprice (and that chin!), Madonna's take on villainy, and the cinematography and directing were impeccable. This film was very professionally made and features tons of great actors who were known as great actors for a while before this film was made (Warren Beatty, Al Pacino, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, Kathy Bates, Mandy Patinkin, Catherine O'Hara, Dick Van Dyke). The film was directed by Beatty himself, which was interesting. It is almost like Beatty saw himself as Tracy in a past life or something because he really fit the part.

I had to give this film an 8/10 for everything that it brought to cinema that got overlooked (for whatever reason). There have been tons of misunderstandings over the rating of this movie on IMDb, and I still don't understand why. The characters were completely original and vibrant, as was the style of the sets, wardrobe, lighting, and everything in this film. Go buy it today. You will not be sorry.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Gerard is a writer with a somewhat overactive imagination. He is also homosexual and Catholic prone to Catholic guilt and something of a clairvoyant, or so it seems. On a trip to Flushing he is 'seduced' by Christine. When he discovers that Christine's new boyfriend is the bit of rough trade he's been fancying from afar he decides to stick around. After all, enforced heterosexuality has its compensations. Then he realizes that Christine's previous three husbands have all died violent deaths. Did Christine murder them and is he or the boyfriend, Herman, going to be 'the fourth man'? Verhoeven's overheated, over-egged melodrama is a delicious blend of Hitchcock and David Lynch, full of OTT eroticism and religious imagery and an awful lot of the colour red. A lot of the time it looks and feels like a dream and we can never be sure that what we are seeing is real or a figment of Gerard's imagination. The fun is in figuring it out. Also the fact that Christine is an infinitely more likable character that either the priggish Gerard or the bullish Herman means we are hardly like to root for either of the men over her. In fact, it's fair to say Gerard's comeuppance can't come soon enough. Super performances, too, from Jeroen Krabbe and Renee Soutendijk and easily Verhoeven's best film up to his wonderfully subversive piece of sci-fi "Starship Troopers".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
positive