4.3.2.1

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.

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.

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.

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!