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.

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.

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.

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.