4.3.2.1

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.

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 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 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.

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.