4.3.2.1. (2010) User Reviews

very, Very average

[Gubby-Allen · 6/10 · 7 June 2010]

Not a bad film by any stretch, nor great. Never quite delivers on the promise it shows.

A very good cast, some excellent cameos, Ben Miller for one, not sure what Ben Shepherd had done to see his career sink to being a hack on News 24 but him too, Kevin Smith & the guy from Criminal Minds. The acting in the main pretty solid. The plot was a good one with the diamond theft, but never fully utilised. Likewise, the New York / girl being videoed storyline never really developed and went nowhere, nor did the Michelle Ryan character.

It was hindered by too much style over substance with the editing, a few too many vag jokes, drawn out sex scenes & the general girl power feel (although at the right times it was well executed).

The diamond theft, did seem to generate an extraordinary level of news & media coverage for days upon end & some of the girls transformations from 20 year old student to criminal mastermind needed some disbelief suspended, but for under 30's enough to warrant a watch & it comes together pretty well in the end, if a little uninspiring.

A Well Worked Brit-Flick

[ciallkennett · 7/10 · 8 June 2010]

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.

It was OK

[maryhall2010 · 5/10 · 7 August 2010]

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.

Good, but...

[LivingZombie · 6/10 · 6 December 2010]

If you watch the trailer, you may expect a non-stop, roller coaster, girl-power, action thrill ride. Don't be fooled. While the movie itself is fun to watch and is a good distraction, it is not by any means a white-knuckle ride. There are exciting parts, but really it is the story of 4 troubled teens from different walks of life and their dealing with a tumultuous three days. The heist that is supposedly the center of the movie, is rather a sideline to the screwed up few days the girls go through. Weird appearances by Kevin Smith, Eve, and Mandy Patinkin.

Overall, it is fun to watch, but you can't take it too seriously. Will it change your life? No. Is it worth an afternoon distraction? Yes.

Noel Clarke... a fantastic British auteur

[jacob-l-williams · 7/10 · 6 June 2010]

4 3 2 1 is the latest film to come from the mind of Noel Clarke and right from the start it is obviously a film by him.

The same snappy editing seen in Adulthood is once again present and the use of quick cuts to disorientate and confuse the audience is once again put to effective use in this intriguing and very well told story.

The film is the type of film that I do not expect the mass public to like and pay to see, it is anti-main stream and proud. The narrative shows three days in the life of each of the four main girls as they each go about their business, it follows one girl at a time before rewinding and following a different girl, each time more being revealed about the characters and the situation.

The film has little real plot as it is more of a character study of women (and crime) in Britain and has no real ending with a sort of cliff hanger that fails. A majority of the acting is also quite poor as the leads fail to give their characters the depth needed, the stand out performers are Ophelia Lovibond as the shy and troubled Shannon, and Noel Clarke in his role as the main villain.

However despite all this it is still a film that I thoroughly enjoyed as Clark has once again written a script that captures drama and mixes it with comedy and has also used many techniques to give this film a very sleek finish and make it enjoyable to watch. I also enjoyed watching all the little cameos of famous people such as Ben Miller, Eve and Plan B.

So in general if you take this film as a film then it is a failure in terms of narrative and performance, but very well made. However if like Clarke's previous films you view it as a social study on Britain it is very effective as within the four story lines Clarke tackles many subjects which young people in London encounter every day such as abortion, divorce, crime, drugs and even homosexuality (in a rather raunchy lesbian sex scene). The score helps Clarke put across his views on society as much like in Adulthood all of the songs are by contemporary R'n'B artists that perspective audience members will know and be able to connect to.

After watching this I have to say that Clarke is become more defined in his film-making and script-writing abilities with each film he makes and the auteuristic qualities he brings to a film particularly in the editing; I just wish that one time he could hire some decent actors.

7/10

A wasted chance

[gollumsdildo · 4/10 · 8 October 2010]

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!

for a younger crowd

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 15 February 2017]

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.

Embarrassing

[SpookyPie88 · 2/10 · 12 January 2011]

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.

Entertaining

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 3 January 2018]

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

What other synonyms are there for the word 'awful'?

[blue_eng · 2/10 · 8 June 2010]

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...

Stylish, slightly tongue in cheek crime caper

[perkypops · 8/10 · 3 May 2011]

Noel Clarke risks his growing reputation as writer/director with a quirky but clever crime caper. Yes it is very removed from Adulthood and Kidulthood but it is still a well crafted piece of writing and directing, with subtle use of a story seen from four different angles. The 4-3-2-1 of the title is neatly explained during the plot in more ways than one.

The leads are all worthy of their billing with performances as diverse as you could wish for. Shanika Warren-Markland is a brilliantly mouthy Kerrys, Emma Roberts a wimpish but loving Joanne, Ophelia Lovibond as the misunderstood and misunderstanding Shannon, and Tamsin Egerton as the sophisticated rich kid musician Cassandra. On their own they are all reduced to big time losers in the course of the Friday to Sunday the film spans, but, together they triumph. And on the subject of smooth performers there is the deliciously dangerous Michelle Ryan, as Kelly, Noel Clarke as Tee and a great cast of support.

The script makes much more sense as the film progresses towards its climax, and the story is cleverly unpeeled before our eyes. The humour expressed within this film both in dialogue and sight gags suggests it is to be taken tongue in cheek and that may upset some of Mr Clarke's followers but not me. I enjoyed every minute of its slightly less than 120 minutes.

For entertainment value alone the film is easily worthy of 8 out of 10.

Check your pringles!

[robert_farrimond · 6/10 · 5 February 2011]

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.

Noel Clarke...you should be ashamed of yourself...Really mean that

[phillip_burton00 · 1/10 · 16 June 2010]

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 Girls, 3 Days, 2 Cities, 1 Chance...... A very interesting British crime thriller with unique take on the lives of British youth.

[saadgkhan · 7/10 · 7 November 2010]

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.

Tough to get into to start with, but stick with it

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 1 April 2011]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Four feisty female friends part ways from a cafe one morning, all are set on a collision course with each other that none of them expected. Joanne (Emma Roberts) is an American girl with a dead end job and a crippled father at home who takes a lot of his frustration out on her. Shannon (Ophelia Lovibond) is spurned by everyone around her following her decision to have an abortion and is on a one way trip to oblivion. Cassandra (Tamsin Egerton) is flying off to New York to meet her internet boyfriend but is in for an unpleasant surprise and Kerrys (Shanika Warren Markland) is the sassiest out the lot of them, a fiery lesbian out to prove everything to everyone. One way or the other, each of them will have an impact on a major diamond heist that some ruthless criminals will stop at nothing to sort out.

Noel Clarke has tried something quite audacious with this high concept effort, that lacks a truly coherent plot and is hard to follow and get in to to start with. But a bit of patience is required, and what you actually have is a fairly complex, intelligent film, with a funky, modern street style and vibe about it that will make it appeal more to the modern audience it is aimed at. With a group of pretty much unknowns in the lead roles, Clarke is trying to get some new talent noticed here and indeed the film appears to be littered with various familiar faces from his previous Kidult/Adulthood films as well as other recent 'urban' flavoured films.

What we ultimately have here is a flawed, slightly messy effort that's obviously set it's ambitions very high, but is still worthy, intriguing and well made enough to give your time to. ***

Life is short, so don't waste any of it on this...

[BrownBoy90 · 1/10 · 22 November 2010]

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!

Quite entertaining, considering it is tosh

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 2 June 2010]

Noel Clarke's 4.3.2.1 tells the interlinked stories of an event filled weekend in the lives of 4 London-based girls, friends as students. It tells each girl's story separately, then rewinds to tell the next one.

Council flat girl Shannon is weepy and depressive: we think this is because her parents are splitting up, but it turns out to be because her mother forced her to have an abortion.

Posh bird Cassandra is off to New York for a piano audition, but her intention is to lose her virginity to someone she met over the internet.

Black Kerrys (pronounced Kerris) is a lesbian with attitude who hates her Brazilian half-brother but wants her father's approval.

And American Joanne doesn't get on with her English step-sister but they share a job working the night shift at a 24-hour chemist / supermarket.

Wrapped around these four intertwining stories is some nonsense about diamonds stolen from Antwerp (and you're never in danger of forgetting this, because it is on TV constantly).

Frankly, the intertwined stories (and the ways they interlinked, with everyone seemingly knowing everyone else) were pretty preposterous, and I had a hard trouble believing any of them. Also, some of the dialogue was a bit naff. But, despite being unbelievable, they were still entertaining, and the leads were all engaging (except for poor snivelling Shannon, whose company rapidly became unwelcome). There were a couple of unexpected cameos, and several of the girls displayed their femininity pleasingly (although I thought the lesbian encounter went on rather too long. I can't believe I just said that).

I think this film thinks it is better than it is. It isn't that good, but I enjoyed it more than it's worth, I suspect.

Oh, and if anyone can tell me how Cassandra managed to get the diamond in her handbag in New York, before she had ever encountered anyone who had had access to the diamonds, I will be very pleased to hear from them (see Gemma Gemma's review for the explanation - I completely missed it, I confess).

So bad I signed up to review!

[da_edwards · 3/10 · 15 November 2010]

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!

Has style and glossy good looks but beneath it is no substance and loads of poor writing in plot and dialogue

[bob the moo · 5 June 2011]

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.

4 stories in 1 movie

[stephen7272 · 7/10 · 28 January 2014]

Was this written by 1 script writer or 4?

This is an enjoyable movie, particularly for the lads (because there are lots of scenes of young nymphets in skimpy clothing).

It's not about a major crime (that's just a back story). It's about each of the 4 young ladies blaming themselves for their own poor decisions in life and then reconciling with them.

The movie was designed to provide sequel since the ending sees the all flying off the New York together for more adventures.

I thought the actresses and actors did a fine job. The wardrobe was just right and the reverse editing style reminded me on Run Zola Run.

do not watch this movie it is rubbish

[noelclarke-914-330526 · 1/10 · 4 December 2010]

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 ---

Something rare and wonderful

[levitak · 10/10 · 1 October 2010]

4.3.2.1 is one of the best movie of it's genres. Far superior the likes of

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and other such movies.

It's action is concentrated on 4 girl. They are as different as day and night both as personalities and as lives however they truly good friends. The movie is separated in 4 segments. Each dealing with the life and struggle on a of a different girl as well the diamond heist that they all completely unwittingly and unknowingly got themselves involved into.

And here comes the magic of the movie. There is less then half an hour dedicated to each girl and yet there is a perfect character development and your really grow to love each of these girl in this tiny amount of time. Each story is as different as the girls themselves. Some are heartbreaking and truly touching, others are quite fun but all truly enjoyable.

Another great thing was the great but small roles of Kevin Smith and Mandy Patinkin(Rube from Dead Like Me) who were awesome

Overall I highly recommend this movie to everybody :)

Interesting experiment from Clarke...

[The_Movie_Cat · 7/10 · 13 November 2010]

Noel Clarke's one of the few British filmmakers today who is making movies worth seeing.

Sure, sometimes his authorial voice can be a little young and naive, and characters are too keen to verbal motives and emotion (even when their throats are crushed, as in Kidulthood). It's to be expected, the guy's still only thirty four at date of writing.

These films shouldn't be taken as "finished products", they're the works of a man trying out his craft. Sure, bits are overwritten, some of the acting is uncertain, and lots of this one owes more to the fact that he made friends with Kevin Smith than any real inspirational development. But it's a commendable learning curve.

This isn't a film in the same vein as the aforementioned Kidulthood or its sequel... it's a film where girls show they're empowered by beating up men or having promiscuous sex. A film where lesbianism is a byword for titillation, and men are predatory by nature. Yet its relatively innovative plot structure rewards, and most of the characters engage.

Despite its cartoonesque excesses, 4.3.2.1 is the kind of film that makes you want to see where Noel Clarke goes next. Having said this, every person I've showed it to has assured me it's a dreadful film with appalling acting, so this may be a personal blindspot.

Terrible, very disappointed.

[provenelk · 5/10 · 5 June 2010]

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.

DT4 comin at ya

[maxandjamesmediastudies · 27 January 2011]

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.