AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Leofwine_draca FOUR is a film that's far too low budget to work properly. The entire movie literally consists of four actors in a grungy old warehouse, with no lighting and seemingly no script given the constant, expletive-laden, and repetitive nature of the dialogue.The best thing about this film is a monologue by guest star Sean Pertwee early on, when he talks about other, better films like RESERVOIR DOGS which was a clear inspiration. After that we get the usual guy-strapped-to-a-chair nonsense, with lots of brutality and slight veers into torture porn territory.Sadly the direction is absolutely pedestrian, the script brings nothing new to the table, and acting from the likes of Martin Compston and Craig Conway isn't enough to tune in for. For a much better version of a similar story, check out the American B-flick SUSHI GIRL.

andyhall666 I probably shouldn't have watched this. I'd skimmed through some of the bad reviews but thought maybe it would still be OK. After all, I'm a sucker for a four-hander play, set in one location. Anyway, as you can guess from the title of this review, I should have heeded the message. It is a poor film. Funnily enough it seems clear that the makers have genuinely tried hard to make something good. It just isn't.The dialogue is poor and unrealistic, the writer constantly betrays his characters, scenarios are derivative and the movie just feels too contrived. In addition, although a useful premise to start with, the ending is far too weak. Less is more might have made for a more effective film. A better writer would've done too.

dogontour Having not heard a great deal about this movie I assumed that it would be passable at best. WRONG. It's a thoroughly entertaining and tightly made piece, with tight directorial pace and sharp dialogue. It is undeniably and unashamedly a film made on a lower budget than Hollywood fare but this is to the films credit rather than it's detriment. A lack of extraneous whistles and bells leaves a script which is economic and witty, delivered very competently by the cast. The location (which incidentally is beautifully lit)acts as the fifth member of this ensemble cast. The direction is stylish without being intrusive. There are a couple of lines of Dialogue I found clumsy but they are few and far between and given the nature of a dialogue and character driven piece not entirely unexpected. Bottom line, It is defiantly a film worth a look.

tracey_space Some good things about this. The production design, the directing, the acting from most of the cast. The general movement of the story is interesting and compelling, but some detail in the dialog is clumsy and comes across as not clever and a bit cliché. On paper it may work, but the film has been ruined by one miscast actor. This actor in the business man. He may be a fine actor for a different script, but here he delivers the lines in a very unbelievable way. He has not crafted a character who we can connect with because his characters personality is never nailed. They needed a different actor to play this main protagonist. Unfortunately he is the weakest link when he is supposed to be the strongest. It might not be his fault. It is likely a casting and/or directing issue. He may be very good in other scripts. So film makers out there, take this as a lesson - casting is the next most important thing after script - without question.