User reviews

4.3.2.1, is a British-teen aimed film with standard Brit ingredients of guns, sex etc. I went with my mum as she (like me) enjoys gritty street Brit flicks such as Kidulthood, Adulthood, Bullet Boy etc.

Admittedly, my mum was the oldest in the premiere screening, and it was a feisty atmosphere, but I was used to this from when I went to the opening screening of Adulthood.

It started off slow. It was just quite a lot of things happening, with little sense or links between them, but as the characters divided off into 4, the story really kicked in. It was similar in style to Pulp Fiction in the fact it follows the individual stories of the characters, all of which have links that connect them together throughout. This was very, very well done throughout and included flashbacks between the switching of characters so the audience could remember what had happened.

It was very well directed, had a good flow to it, and had lots of comedic parts, all of which were subtlety put in to it so to not make it into a predominately comedic film.

The film was well rounded off, with me actually leaving quite surprised. The ending left scope for a sequel (which I know looks to be in the pipeline) and I actually enjoyed it far more than I expected.

Most films I see at the cinema, I leave thinking I don't want to see it again, not because it was rubbish, but because I felt I'd enjoyed it enough not to need to re-watch it. This, however, was simply brilliantly made, had a strong plot and left me wanting more. My mum even enjoyed it more than me, and she's 40 :P Although not my highest rated film this year so far, this does go down as probably the most enjoyed and well worked film I've seen this year.

Noel Clarke's 4.3.2.1 is well… okay.

The story is simple: 4 friends find some stolen gems and the thieves want them back.

The movie is split into four separate time lines one for each girl which Clarke uses to explore their lives, relationships and personalities over 3 days while they work out how to deal with being thrust into this situation.

The four leads, Emma Roberts, Tamsin Egerton, Shanika Warren-Marland, and Ophelia Lovibond give up great performances and Michelle Ryan, clearly relishes her role as chief baddie gives us a really awful performance. Clarke fans will be disappointed to learn that he only appears for few scenes. Cameos from Mandy Patinkin, Nick Briggs, Ben Stiller, Kevin Smith and Camille Coduri.

The direction is okay and the action has the usual music track to make it all look like things are moving, the script contains a couple of crap lines but in general it's an okay movie. And that is that. 5 out of 10.

Noel Clarke showed a lot of promise as a independent British film maker with the excellent Adulthood, the second part of Kidulthood of which he also wrote. Both films had an honest and frightening portrayal of youth culture today. What made these films stand out was the depth of the characters he created not seen in others films trying to portray the same subject of youth gone wrong, the audience actually cared about where these people's lives would lead to. Clarke is a film maker with something bold to say and has his own style with plenty of potential to be one of uk's top film makers. Unfortunately his latest film 4.3.2.1 doesn't confirm this.

4.3.2.1 is a film that promises a lot with poster tagline says 4 girls, 3 days, 2 cities, 1 chance, its an exciting set up. 4 friends stories and lives told separately all of which become linked through a diamond heist with some rough characters in pursuit. This type of story telling has worked very well for Tarantino's classic Pulp Fiction and Doug Limans "Go!". In fact this film has more in common with "Go!" in terms of plot. You only have to see both these films to know that when done right this type of story telling can be exciting, fresh and damn good fun but Clarke just doesn't seem to have a grip of the story and where its going, it could have done with a better edit, each of the girls stories are overlong and drawn out where they could have been fast, sharp and snappy with only Shannon's story (the first to be shown) showing excitement and gripping an audience, such a shame as this was a promising start. The New York sequence felt poorly executed and unexplained, a poor attempt at a cross over potential with cameo's from Kevin Smith (which was more irritating then funny) and Eve (quite pointless).

The performances from the four leads do save the film from being a total failure, particularly from Ophelia Lovibond and Emma Roberts. Clarke clearly shows his gift for writing strong and rich characters. Some people have cried stereotype's for the four leads, with this i disagree in fact i feel all four of them were girls you could route for and were the strongest aspect of the film The sad part is i really wanted to love this film, i had high expectations and hoped it could be a winning cross over for Clarke. This film overall failed to give me the same excitement i had for his previous films. The plot and pacing felt uneven, the whole film was half an hour too long and more importantly not fun at all making 4.3.2.1 feel like a wasted opportunity to wider Clarke's audiences. I believe the best is yet to come from the award winning film maker but this is not the best example of his talent only showing a small amount of his potential. Maybe go back to basics next time!

Four girlfriends, each in their own troubles over head, are involved in the theft of diamonds, which they are not even aware of. Movie tells four separate stories, each being close up for one of the girls. Then stories begin to intertwine and merge into a common finale. Interesting, but in every way mediocre. I'm giving one additional point because this is Noel's second directing and movie has low budget for today's standards. My secret crush in Emma Roberts did not affect my rating, I promise.

7/10

I had high hopes for this film. British films tend to have depth to them and I like Noel Clarke. However, this was almost embarrassing to watch. The writing is on par with those terrible Olsen movies and the plot isn't much better. The film seemingly was just written to string together various scenes of the girls in their underwear, sex scenes and lesbian kissing. The girls are beautiful and the cinematography is cool but the actual film is crap. Noel Clarke is fun to watch as an actor, but his writing leaves a lot to be desired. It really is like something the Disney channel would write just littered with swear words. Its a shame. I really did want to like this film but I was left so disappointed.

Four young female friends in England (Ophelia Lovibond, Shanika Warren- Markland, Emma Roberts, Tamsin Egerton) have individual adventures, all of which end up connected to a huge diamond heist.

Cassandra (Egerton), from a wealthy family, travels to New York City for an audition with an important piano teacher and also to meet her Internet boyfriend. Jo (Roberts), to help her family, has to work in a 7-11 type store at night. Kerrys (Warren-Markland) is a lesbian rebelling against her family, particularly her half-brother; and Shannon (Lovibond) is desperately unhappy, feels she has no one to talk to, abandoned by her mother, and contemplating suicide.

Using the Pulp Fiction-Jackie Brown format, we see how each woman becomes involved with one another over three nights and what leads them to their involvement in a diamond heist, which during the film is being broadcast on TV in many scenes.

I thought this was well done and appeals to a young crowd. The friends are beautiful and going through passages like losing virginity, trying to get accepted in an important school, parents breaking up, blended families, driving tests and the like.

When Cassandra, a stunning blond, goes to New York for her audition, at one point she is walking around wearing a long sweater. That's it, a long sweater and nothing on her long, gorgeous legs. No woman walks around New York City like that. I don't mean to imply that you're "asking for it" - no - but for most women, the harassment, the men following you, and the whistling can be scary and/or annoying and not worth it, especially for someone new to the city.

There are very funny as well as dramatic sections; this winds up as an entertaining film, a little longer than it needed to be, but fun.

4.3.2.1 Go anywhere but near this! The film makes no sense what-so-ever; it's a bit like an appendix! There is no real need for it, but it's there all the same! The story is boring, and doesn't match up. The characters are not people you would want to know let alone be interested in. I've had more fun sitting on the loo trying to squeeze one out. For British films to be taken seriously, we need good scripts with interesting stories that are brought to life by actors who can act with personality. There is NO humour in this whatsoever. It's mind numbingly awful! The only people who would like this film are those who were involved in it... that's it! Don't get me started on the music... embarrassing! Star!

It's not because I'm British. It's not because I'm a fan of Tamsin Egerton. It's because this films is brilliantly directed and the screenplay is solid.

This film captured me from the beginning. The concept of four girls, total opposites, yet it's thoroughly believable that they're best friends. How their lives, though completely different are connected through the use of diamonds.

The acting. Although some can be seen as stupid because it's more comical, I don't think I could fault many of the actors as it was terribly convincing. Tamsin Egerton, after seeing her in Keeping Mum and St Trinians has proved herself to be a rising star, although she seems to play similar characters, she still excels. Emma Roberts, I couldn't quite accept her driving a car, as she looked far too young compared to the other cast members yet she still gave a good performance. Ophelia Lovibond is very shaky throughout the film and sometimes unconvincing in her anguish but she still gives a satisfying performance. Shanika Warren- Markland is, I guess offers comic relief in the film and is a direct link to the diamond heist yet we never really focus on the diamonds. Her character is believable and funny. The rest of the cast are very good, with a few surprising faces it is also the fun of spotting who you know as well as getting involved with the story.

The direction. I have never seen 'Kidulthood' or 'Adulthood' so I didn't really know what to expect, I deemed those films to be 'not my taste' and so I'v never watched them but after seeing this film, I certainly want to have a look at them both. There are many jump cuts and it seems to cut too fast at times, but that, I think adds to the tension and mirrors your feelings of not knowing what is going on. The quick cuts help you feel like the characters, confused even though it's happening right before you. The way it's edited with it being an almost portmanteau film adds to the tension and suspense as you can only really piece together everything that's happened in the very end; very amusing and well pieced together.

I would believe those who have called it average will be big fans of American clean-cut cinema. This film offers many ambiguous techniques which is brilliant and quite rare in most mainstream Hollywood films. This film, to me, is new, clever and slick, the way the script works is brilliant and the way it is edited and filmed is superb. The worst thing about this film is that I think is that it's highly under-rated. I don't often slate people for having bad tastes in film but if you really dislike this film you need to take a break from James Cameron and open your eyes to British and alternative cinema.

This film is a rare diamond. Not to be called average and not to be overlooked.

Firstly I was a fan of Noel Clarke. I thought the acclaimed Kidulthood was very well written. Adulthood was again very well written and really made a statement about the youth of today.

And then comes 4,3,2,1............Jesus Christ......What the hell was he thinking

This film is wrong on so many levels. This film was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at trying to emulate American directors like Tarantino in a tongue in cheek ridiculous story. The story itself was absolutely atrocious, unclear and unrealistic. The dialogue was terrible and the acting was so stereotypical that by half way through I really couldn't have given a toss how it ended...I just wanted it to end and the pain to stop.

I honestly took Mr. Clarke for an upcoming writer/director who has a voice and something to say about the world. I would have compared him to people like Mike Leigh and Danny Boyle early in their careers and thought after his first two successes he would be looking to make real life films that make a real statement, films like Nil by mouth or 21 grams.

I think what has happened is that he won his BAFTA and it went straight to his head. His agent has been on at him to make something...anything, and he thought that because of his success he could bang out a decent budget action comedy with plenty of female flesh and sex talk, stick a bit of Tarantino and guy Ritchie in their and hey presto...and to top it all off I'll give myself the most egotistical and arrogant part in the Movie...because I obviously have that opinion of himself.

I myself are a young upcoming film maker and I must say that it upset me a great deal watching this...just thinking what I could have made with a tenth of his budget. I just hope to God that the film does not make it's money back and Noel is brought crashing back down to earth and realises that in order to make a good film...you actually have to do some work.

Thank you

4.3.2.1 – CATCH IT ( B+ ) 4 Girls, 3 Days, 2 Cities, 1 Chance...... A very interesting British crime thriller with unique take on the lives of British youth. The movie has been shot in very Risqué and Erotic way but this can't be denied that it portrays the young troubled youth, who have gone way to wild than people assume they ever will. I like how director have interlinked four stories into each other and eventually it seems like that you have seen four movies in one, which is great because each and every story is fast paced and the girls are Simply Hot & talented. The movie starts with very interesting scene and then suddenly we rushed back to the events which lead to this scene. All four girls meet in café and then rush to their houses and that's how story of one girl to another starts in a very interesting and entertaining way. 4. Ophelia Lovibond is gorgeous and among all girls she was indeed the best and most powerful. Her performance and story is really interesting and it's quite interesting to see other's girls segment concluding her story. Ryan Michelle as the mobster looks Cute & Hot. 3. Tamsin Egerton is a stunner; she looks like a perfect model with some good acting chops as well. Her story has some really erotic and funny moments, as she goes to New York to meet her dream net lover so she can finally lose her virginity. It's amazing how she takes out the revenge and deal with those guys. Eve made a small special appearance in it. Freddie Stroma is Hot & very cunning this time. 2. Shanika Warren-Markland is Hot! I thought she is just another long leggy girl but seriously she is extremely Hot! She plays a lesbian in the movie it's interesting to see her dynamics with her family and Half-brother. Gregg Chillin did a good job as her half brother. Susannah Fielding as Shanika's lesbian lover was hot and they share some really steamy scenes. 1. Emma Roberts is cute and whenever I see her in adult roles it's hard for me to digest. She is cursing the whole time and using words like Di*k, Sh*t and Fu*k a lot so its Emma Roberts (I never accept her like that), Nonetheless she did a commendable job and proved that if we forget her good girl image she has that Raw adult potential. Linzey Cooker, Noel Clarke, Adam Deacon and Jacob Anderson did their part right. Over all a very good risqué British Crime Thriller, watch it, it's very entertaining.

There's a reason why UK films often don't make the honours list at the Oscars...awful acting.

This movie has all the charisma of Robert De Niro wearing a ballet tutu and auditioning for the lead role in Swan Lake.

Whilst the British should pride themselves on good period dramas such as "Pride and Prejudice", "4.3.2.1." unfortunately is an awful film. Period (pardon the pun).

The acting was painful. There was no chemistry between the actors. The lesbian sex scene(s) was no more than gratuitous eye candy so as to entice the film fan to stay awake a bit longer and the UK Garage soundtrack which we should be celebrating as being uniquely British merely proves that as a genre it has never taken off, internationally.

Kevin Smith, Mandy Patinkin and Michelle Ryan's cameo appearance were the only saving grace during the movie.

Look past the skimpy underwear, occasional high kicks and one liners and this film falls short of the mark. Desperately.

Recall the Beatles song, "A Day In The Life" and then imagine 4 lead characters having their part in the film portrayed individually for 15 - 20 minutes. By the time the 2nd character's 'day in the life' is portrayed, I really wanted to go home.

A film plot is only as good as the actors who make it real and keep you glued to your seat. I just wanted to get up and go make a cup of tea...

This has to be one of the worst ever movies I have tried to watch the story line. No story line? And the acting terrible. It so boring I could not watch this movie. When I read other reviews on this movie you know that the cast and director have tried to write reviews for this rubbish. This movie gives UK movie's a bad name. This is terrible. Seriously don't ever make another movie again like this Mr Noel Clarke and as for the cast. There are B-Movies this is a Z-Movie.

--- do not watch this movie it is rubbish --- --- do not watch this movie it is rubbish --- --- do not watch this movie it is rubbish --- --- do not watch this movie it is rubbish ---

Considering how awful Sex & The City 2 was, I liked the way that 4321 mimicked it in its marketing campaign because it was quite clever in the way it offered a different story of 4 women in the city. However the comparison ends there as 4321 is a sort of crime caper where 4 women get caught up with a low-level group of thugs who are moving a bag of stolen diamonds. The story starts with the 4 girls together in a coffee shop before they go on their separate ways for a couple of days – we know the point where they will come together (on a bridge, bloodied, with guns and diamonds) and the coffee shop is the point where we split and follow each story separately, each time flashing back to start again on a different girl.

As a structure it works pretty well as each tells a semi-stand alone story while also linking up (a little) with the overall whole and, while not an original idea, it is one that works well. On top of this I thought joint directors Clarke and Davis did a great job with the style of the film. The 4-way split at the coffee shop looks cool and generally the film has a glossy look and feel to it despite where it is set – it isn't high art by any means but it allows the film to retains Clarke's usual "hoodie" target audience and perhaps expand to those just looking for a glossy caper.

OK, so that's the good out of the way, now let's talk about the bad. The plot(s) are mostly terrible and they are backed up with a script that is full of clunky unrealistic dialogue that just hurts my ears. Although the film sounds good in a tagline summary, the reality is that all of it is poorly written and filled with convenient devices, coincidence and contrivances that rob of it any flow. The side-plots make up the majority of the film and it isn't really that each of the four strands "come together" so much as 3 of them fill time and the fourth one contains the majority of the diamond plot. This puts a lot of pressure on the side plots and mostly they are nonsense – although young boys may get a kick out of the amount of toned young flesh on display – in particular the most brazen of the 4 characters is a lesbian (seemingly for the sole reason of getting some girl/girl action into the mix). The dialogue is the sort of stuff that probably looked great on paper with its tough monologues and swagger but when it starts being spoken it just doesn't work. It doesn't help that the cast are not that great.

It is not that they are bad but just that they are let down here and, without any material to work with they match the base elements being asked for. Lovibond mopes around the place without any reason – the film needs her to be the heart but neglects to give her much to help her (or indeed have any interest in substance or heart) so she just looks depressed most of the time. Egerton is leggy and blonde and that is what the film plays to. I did quite like her segment though, even though it was also nonsense. Roberts is quite fun – although I think that is because I found her cute rather than anything else. Warren-Markland overplays her aggressive sexuality to the point of being tiresome – sure she has a great body (the film shows it to you lots) but her character is annoying and she offers nothing to counter that. The various Clarke regulars are all here doing their thing (whether hoodie or parent) while cameos from Ben Miller, Kevin Smith, Mandy Patinkin and Eve mostly seem to have been a "branching out" or marketing-friendly piece of casting from the point of view of Clarke getting to a wider audience.

For a British film, 4321 has aspirations in the style and energy it has and, in fairness it does work well in this regard. However once you go even a hair below the surface, there is nothing else to be had as the writing is weak and the substance is lacking. A shame but ultimately this great looking film is essentially a messy plot and the only function it serves is to Clarke as he attempts to expand his reach and career. The conclusions leaves the door open for a sequel (54321) but that won't happen.

One of the worst films I've seen in ages, actually ever. Astonished that people have even made comparisons to films such as Pulp Fiction - what an insult!

The storyline was weak and confused (not confusing) and seemed to be based around often chavvy 20-somethings getting down to their underwear for no apparent reason. The script and acting was embarrassing and the 'twist' at the end wasn't even a twist.

Will never get that time back, or the rental money. Avoid, and if "4.3.2.1 is one of the best movie of it's genres (sic)" as one reviewer suggested, avoid this genre too!

Before seeing this film, i heard in an interview that Clarke wrote this film as a reaction to accusations of sexism in his films. Upon seeing the film it became painfully obvious what he was trying to do. To be honest, it felt like a Spice Girls movie smothered in fancy editing and a few vag jokes. All the male characters are pigs, slobs, violent, pervs, stalkers, sexist, or chauvinists. (with the exception of the fat ISP delivery man). contrast this against how nearly every female character is girl power personified "girls get to kick butt to!"...

For some reason despite this in your face feminist content, the film is still filled with stereotypes. Shopping obsessed, meeting for lunch with the "girlies" - it felt like a British sex and the city at points. Even worse, the horrifically clichéd hard-nosed man hating lesbian, who spends half her screen time walking around with just underwear and making out with another girl. Yay feminism! Some of the editing was impressive, and i could tell Clarke was trying to mould an image as a British auteur (perhaps in the image of Tarantino), but frankly it just seemed sloppy and slowed the pace down. it felt like having to watch 4 movies in a row start to finish.

However, there are two things which i did like about this movie. Firstly, Noel Clarke plays the role of "Tee" very well, and definitely shows promise as an actor. Secondly, Kevin Smiths cameo as the fat delivery guy was probably the best part of the film, and funniest, for me anyway. Apart from this the acting was pretty poor, and the horrendous soundtrack forced me into listening to music i hate, though I'm sure the "bruv" youth of neon lighted cars would enjoy this. (not saying thats a good thing).

Overall it was a pretty poor effort. i can tell what Clarke wanted to do but it rarely worked and seemed like another re-hash of fancy narrative structure in the wake of Tarantino and other British crime films. And the clichéd (but contradicted) feminism really just confused the movie especially with all the vag jokes (seriously, there are loads!) thank god Kevin Smith was in there to balance it out with a few dick jokes.

Today I come to you from a hidden location to talk to you about my favourite film of all time, Star Wars. 4321 is an absolutely shocking film, and what made it worse is I watched it in a shocking location. The first part of the film was bad and the second part of the film was bad In fact it was so bad I almost fell asleep. In conclusion I'd recommend watching this film as it depicts life in the UK as it really is. I remember the part where they got locked away and I did not care for it because it was unrealistic. I watched it on a portable DVD on a roller-coaster and this was an ideal location because the film was terrible. Yours, Nick West.