Four

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.

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.

I must admit, when I heard that this film had been made for £100k all in, and shot on one location in 17 days straight, I lowered my expectations accordingly. I needn't have, the script is taught, the dialogue is genuinely amusing with plenty of humour and for the most part the editing is sharp; while the plot unfolds revealing a different layer with each twist... The ending delivers a great pay off too.

Pertwee brings real menace to the roll of the sinister detective and all of the characters are well observed.

The broadsheets were hard on this film, I recommend you watch it and decide for yourself. It's a low budget British film, that may be reason enough for many support it, but I want to be entertained as well, and Four delivered on that score. Hence my 8 out of 10.

Watch it. And Watch out for debut film maker John Langridge, if that's hist first effort I can't wait to see what comes next!

This film did actually do someone things well. Limited cast films that are just set in one location are always interesting. Theres enough here to keep you watching to the end and even a kind of twist in a way. I don't like the characters not having names, despite it being easier to remember them. But looking at what happens in the film there is a reason for that. Pertween and compton do good in this. But it would be better if they were in a much better movie. The other cast members did an ok job to. Really it was an alright movie. It could have just done with being a bit longer and maybe a bit more aciton happening.

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.