Genres

Visitors Review

lllolaaa 2012-05-21 03:10:05

Not worth it - even if you get to view for free

I've not watched Adulthood or Kidulthood so perhaps I might have missedout on some background information on this film, but I thought this wasa load of rubbish. There are some scenes that so disbelieving thatthere was no way I could take this film seriously. For example therewas a scene where one of the main female character was upset for somereason decided to sit on the ground huddled up next to an empty bench.Then two guys come and sit on the bench talking about a crime unawarethat she's is there. No they didn't have white sticks either. Thenwhile into the midst of their sensitive conversation, oh look, they'suddenly' spot the girl even though she's only about a metre away!Then question and chase after her, didn't catch her even though it wastwo tall men and one upset girl with big coat and bag! The main part of this storyline is some stolen diamonds. So where andhow do they get these stolen diamonds? Outside Westfields where a guyhands a bag of them to one 'badguy1' to which badguy1 then slowlyexamines one of the diamonds by holding up to the light in broaddaylight..... outside the busy Westfields..... in front of all theshoppers and the four girls there.... stolen diamonds..... I got up to 20 minutes of the DVD and couldn't take anymore. Everyonetries too hard, so I guess this was an instruction from the producersor writers of this script than poor acting. It felt like an Eastendersversion of Sex of the City with some over hyped view of 'estateganstas'.

davideo-2 2012-05-20 05:58:53

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

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Four feisty female friends part ways from a cafe one morning, all areset 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 acrippled father at home who takes a lot of his frustration out on her.Shannon (Ophelia Lovibond) is spurned by everyone around her followingher 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 herinternet boyfriend but is in for an unpleasant surprise and Kerrys(Shanika Warren Markland) is the sassiest out the lot of them, a fierylesbian out to prove everything to everyone. One way or the other, eachof them will have an impact on a major diamond heist that some ruthlesscriminals will stop at nothing to sort out.Noel Clarke has tried something quite audacious with this high concepteffort, that lacks a truly coherent plot and is hard to follow and getin to to start with. But a bit of patience is required, and what youactually have is a fairly complex, intelligent film, with a funky,modern street style and vibe about it that will make it appeal more tothe modern audience it is aimed at. With a group of pretty muchunknowns in the lead roles, Clarke is trying to get some new talentnoticed here and indeed the film appears to be littered with variousfamiliar faces from his previous Kidult/Adulthood films as well asother recent 'urban' flavoured films.What we ultimately have here is a flawed, slightly messy effort that'sobviously set it's ambitions very high, but is still worthy, intriguingand well made enough to give your time to. ***

chrisrolfny 2012-05-19 07:30:23

Banal: The bad English remake of "GO".

An embarrassment to the long history of great British crime films. Witha nod and many unfortunate winks this film is something along the linesof "Snatch" got drunk and shagged "Charlie's Angels" in a parking andthis is the off shot.Emma Roberts manages to have some charm. But on the whole this filmtries way too hard to be way to cool and even the (Viagra) humor isn'tfunny. Racial, sexual and ethnic stereotypes abound, while pretendingit's just so 'aware' that it's above such contrivances, this film pullsthem out a by the baker's dozen in lieu of having any real characters.An idiotic plot (and an oh so stupid ending) devoid of (except maybethe exception of Emma Roberts performance) charm, wit, soul, depth ordialog.Not worth the two hours. Watch "GO" again. Or better yet watch 11:14they are both structurally similar but so much better.

gollumsdildo 2012-05-18 18:39:11

A wasted chance

Noel Clarke showed a lot of promise as a independent British film makerwith the excellent Adulthood, the second part of Kidulthood of which healso wrote. Both films had an honest and frightening portrayal of youthculture today. What made these films stand out was the depth of thecharacters he created not seen in others films trying to portray thesame subject of youth gone wrong, the audience actually cared aboutwhere these people's lives would lead to. Clarke is a film maker withsomething bold to say and has his own style with plenty of potential tobe one of uk's top film makers. Unfortunately his latest film 4.3.2.1doesn'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 storiesand lives told separately all of which become linked through a diamondheist with some rough characters in pursuit. This type of story tellinghas worked very well for Tarantino's classic Pulp Fiction and DougLimans "Go!". In fact this film has more in common with "Go!" in termsof plot. You only have to see both these films to know that when doneright this type of story telling can be exciting, fresh and damn goodfun but Clarke just doesn't seem to have a grip of the story and whereits going, it could have done with a better edit, each of the girlsstories 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 apromising start. The New York sequence felt poorly executed andunexplained, a poor attempt at a cross over potential with cameo's fromKevin Smith (which was more irritating then funny) and Eve (quitepointless).The performances from the four leads do save the film from being atotal 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 idisagree in fact i feel all four of them were girls you could route forand were the strongest aspect of the film The sad part is i reallywanted to love this film, i had high expectations and hoped it could bea winning cross over for Clarke. This film overall failed to give methe same excitement i had for his previous films. The plot and pacingfelt uneven, the whole film was half an hour too long and moreimportantly not fun at all making 4.3.2.1 feel like a wastedopportunity to wider Clarke's audiences. I believe the best is yet tocome from the award winning film maker but this is not the best exampleof his talent only showing a small amount of his potential. Maybe goback to basics next time!

georgia_cushion 2012-05-17 10:42:45

4321

I had high expectations for this film as I had wanted to see it forages, and today I finally got round to it. It had a good story-line andsome very good actors Roberts and Clarke to name a couple. I thought itwas fast paced and kept you wanting to know how all the stories werelinked together (which in itself I thought was a good idea.) It hadless action and suspense than I was hoping for but I wasn'tdisappointed by their efforts. I did enjoy it but it wasn't as good asI would have wanted it to be. Overall I would say that 4.3.2.1 is avery good film with some good actors and good story-line. I would rateit 8.5/10 and say that it is suitable for anyone mature 13+.

LivingZombie 2012-05-16 14:05:39

Good, but...

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 itselfis fun to watch and is a good distraction, it is not by any means awhite-knuckle ride. There are exciting parts, but really it is thestory of 4 troubled teens from different walks of life and theirdealing with a tumultuous three days. The heist that is supposedly thecenter of the movie, is rather a sideline to the screwed up few daysthe girls go through. Weird appearances by Kevin Smith, Eve, and MandyPatinkin.Overall, it is fun to watch, but you can't take it too seriously. Willit change your life? No. Is it worth an afternoon distraction? Yes.

bob the moo 2012-05-07 19:17:09

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

Considering how awful Sex & The City 2 was, I liked the way that 4321mimicked it in its marketing campaign because it was quite clever inthe way it offered a different story of 4 women in the city. Howeverthe comparison ends there as 4321 is a sort of crime caper where 4women get caught up with a low-level group of thugs who are moving abag of stolen diamonds. The story starts with the 4 girls together in acoffee 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 pointwhere we split and follow each story separately, each time flashingback to start again on a different girl.As a structure it works pretty well as each tells a semi-stand alonestory 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 Ithought joint directors Clarke and Davis did a great job with the styleof the film. The 4-way split at the coffee shop looks cool andgenerally the film has a glossy look and feel to it despite where it isset – it isn't high art by any means but it allows the film to retainsClarke's usual "hoodie" target audience and perhaps expand to thosejust 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 scriptthat is full of clunky unrealistic dialogue that just hurts my ears.Although the film sounds good in a tagline summary, the reality is thatall of it is poorly written and filled with convenient devices,coincidence and contrivances that rob of it any flow. The side-plotsmake up the majority of the film and it isn't really that each of thefour strands "come together" so much as 3 of them fill time and thefourth one contains the majority of the diamond plot. This puts a lotof pressure on the side plots and mostly they are nonsense – althoughyoung boys may get a kick out of the amount of toned young flesh ondisplay – in particular the most brazen of the 4 characters is alesbian (seemingly for the sole reason of getting some girl/girl actioninto the mix). The dialogue is the sort of stuff that probably lookedgreat on paper with its tough monologues and swagger but when it startsbeing spoken it just doesn't work. It doesn't help that the cast arenot 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 beingasked for. Lovibond mopes around the place without any reason – thefilm needs her to be the heart but neglects to give her much to helpher (or indeed have any interest in substance or heart) so she justlooks depressed most of the time. Egerton is leggy and blonde and thatis what the film plays to. I did quite like her segment though, eventhough it was also nonsense. Roberts is quite fun – although I thinkthat is because I found her cute rather than anything else.Warren-Markland overplays her aggressive sexuality to the point ofbeing tiresome – sure she has a great body (the film shows it to youlots) but her character is annoying and she offers nothing to counterthat. 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" ormarketing-friendly piece of casting from the point of view of Clarkegetting to a wider audience.For a British film, 4321 has aspirations in the style and energy it hasand, in fairness it does work well in this regard. However once you goeven a hair below the surface, there is nothing else to be had as thewriting is weak and the substance is lacking. A shame but ultimatelythis great looking film is essentially a messy plot and the onlyfunction it serves is to Clarke as he attempts to expand his reach andcareer. The conclusions leaves the door open for a sequel (54321) butthat won't happen.

FlashCallahan 2012-05-07 03:49:56

ask for Tee....

While Jo is chained down in a dead end supermarket job, her friends areall out on their own separate adventures.Cassandra is jetting off to New York to meet her Internet boyfriend;Kerrys is on a one woman crusade fighting for female liberation andShannon is on a one way trip to meet her maker.But a chance encounter with some diamond thieves sends their separateworlds on a collision course with not only each other, but fate itself.Even though this film has possibly the worst opening twenty minutes ofany film (it was so bad and confusing, i nearly turned the thing off),if you stick with it, you will be treated to a film, that isn't asclever as the Magnolia/Run Lola Run hybrid movie it thinks it is, but afilm that is pretty to look at and gets a lot better once you realisewhat Clarke is doing with this film.I can understand why so many people hate this film, it's too laid backto be a thriller, and it's too threatening to be a comedy, so itsuffers from the schizophrenic movie syndrome so many other overlookedfilms have, it's hard to put this film into a genre.But there is a lot of fun to be had here. There are some good cameosfrom Smith and Miller, the cast are attractive on the verge of annoyingand once all the loose ends are tied up, you are quite pleased at thevery gooey, predictable ending.It's not for all tastes, but for some reason I think Clarke has made agood movie, and continues to be one of Britains better film makers.

SpookyPie88 2012-05-06 21:18:56

Embarrassing

I had high hopes for this film. British films tend to have depth tothem and I like Noel Clarke. However, this was almost embarrassing towatch. The writing is on par with those terrible Olsen movies and theplot isn't much better. The film seemingly was just written to stringtogether various scenes of the girls in their underwear, sex scenes andlesbian kissing. The girls are beautiful and the cinematography is coolbut 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 somethingthe Disney channel would write just littered with swear words. Its ashame. I really did want to like this film but I was left sodisappointed.

wafibed 2012-05-06 11:14:37

seems like Vantage Point

I liked this movie cause of the people who are in it :P Also itreminded me of Vantage Point because it shows you the end of the moviethen goes back through different characters points of view till the endof movie. I went to see it cause I knew Emma Roberts was in it and Ireally liked the performance. It talks about so many things that arefamiliar cases to teenagers. The ending was week I'll say that much andit was a bit long as well. Each character has something behind them andshows you the troubles that many teenage girls are faced with today.For example being adopted, abortion, parents remarrying, feelinglonely, parents divorce, and even an internet relationship. The main story is about the four girls and how three of them try tosave a friend from jumping into the Thames.

Johan Jongepier 2012-05-05 21:25:02

I enjoyed it very much and that's what movies are made for, isn't it?

Been a long while since I saw a movie that was fun to watch and alsooriginal. I've had it with all the Hollywoodfilm clichés. I gave itnine stars, not because it's a classic. No, it isn't that brilliant.But because I finally got the entertainment that I like but without theHollywood clichés. Maybe I've seen too much American movies and shouldI see more European productions.I got a message that I should submit more than 10 lines for a review?Why? If the word"s "fun" and "Original" tell the world what the movieis about, than that's enough isn't it? Well it that case somethingabout the actors. They performed really well. The characters are welldone, really convincing and realistic. Likeyour girl next door. Mycompliments.Have I've reached my ten lines yet? I'm no good in counting. Well let'spost it man. It says congretulations, so finally I've done somethinggood in live! But I've to submit it it again. All these safety things..so American :-(

ciallkennett 2012-05-05 02:32:56

A Well Worked Brit-Flick

4.3.2.1, is a British-teen aimed film with standard Brit ingredients ofguns, sex etc. I went with my mum as she (like me) enjoys gritty streetBrit flicks such as Kidulthood, Adulthood, Bullet Boy etc.Admittedly, my mum was the oldest in the premiere screening, and it wasa feisty atmosphere, but I was used to this from when I went to theopening screening of Adulthood.It started off slow. It was just quite a lot of things happening, withlittle sense or links between them, but as the characters divided offinto 4, the story really kicked in. It was similar in style to PulpFiction in the fact it follows the individual stories of thecharacters, all of which have links that connect them togetherthroughout. This was very, very well done throughout and includedflashbacks between the switching of characters so the audience couldremember what had happened.It was very well directed, had a good flow to it, and had lots ofcomedic parts, all of which were subtlety put in to it so to not makeit into a predominately comedic film.The film was well rounded off, with me actually leaving quitesurprised. The ending left scope for a sequel (which I know looks to bein 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 itagain, not because it was rubbish, but because I felt I'd enjoyed itenough not to need to re-watch it. This, however, was simplybrilliantly made, had a strong plot and left me wanting more. My mumeven enjoyed it more than me, and she's 40 :P Although not my highestrated film this year so far, this does go down as probably the mostenjoyed and well worked film I've seen this year.

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain 2012-05-02 15:06:19

4.3.2.1 (2010)

A generic and immature offering. The film is entertaining, if you canslide aside some terrible performances. It's something a teenager wouldwrite after watching Lock,Stock..., Pulp Fiction and GO!. Those fastpaced crime films reveled in their daft dialogue, awesome soundtrackchoices, and large ensembles. Unfortunately, 4.3.2.1 seems as thoughnobody read the thing before making it. The huge amount of coincidencesdo nothing but cheapen the film. As the four stories are revealed, someseem to have nothing to do with anything, while others have so muchgoing on it's impossible to give a fudge. Why did I need to see thestory about a girl going to New York, being tricked into sex, etc. Idon't know. Other than it opening up some American locales and bizarreKevin Smith/Mandy Patenkin roles appearances. I don't mind a few "Whatare the odds?" moments in my movies, but this film is dependent onthem. In a true sign of incompetent writing, every time the film hits adead end, a lucky coincidence kicks the story down the road. If youstick films on and don't intend to think about it ever again, then youshould watch this. It can be a bit infuriating for others.

mjturny23 2012-05-02 01:31:49

Amazing!

It is rare to see strong, interesting and individual female roles infilm. This film delivers four.The film is pure excitement from start to finish, with a well polishedscript, superb acting and more story in each of the four segments thanyou would see in most films.I can definitely see the Tarrantino inspiration, but nothing in thisfilm feels familiar. I haven't see Noel Clark's other movies but I willbe proud to add this one to my DVD collection and re-watch many times.With the visual look of the film and many locations used it has all theBritish charm but feels like it's on a major American studio budget.Highly recommended!

The_Movie_Cat 2012-05-01 05:46:08

Interesting experiment from Clarke...

Noel Clarke's one of the few British filmmakers today who is makingmovies 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 whentheir throats are crushed, as in Kidulthood). It's to be expected, theguy's still only thirty four at date of writing.These films shouldn't be taken as "finished products", they're theworks of a man trying out his craft. Sure, bits are overwritten, someof the acting is uncertain, and lots of this one owes more to the factthat he made friends with Kevin Smith than any real inspirationaldevelopment. But it's a commendable learning curve.This isn't a film in the same vein as the aforementioned Kidulthood orits sequel... it's a film where girls show they're empowered by beatingup men or having promiscuous sex. A film where lesbianism is a bywordfor titillation, and men are predatory by nature. Yet its relativelyinnovative plot structure rewards, and most of the characters engage.Despite its cartoonesque excesses, 4.3.2.1 is the kind of film thatmakes 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 withappalling acting, so this may be a personal blindspot.

anxietyresister 2012-04-30 22:00:51

Average chicks with guns flick

From the director of Kidulthood comes a shaggy dog story that seems togo on forever: Each girl has her little segment over the same timeperiod before their stories meet up at the end. There are someingenious touches here and there, but this is certainly a lot lessclever than it thinks it is. None of the individual parts rises abovethe mediocre, and most will bore you before the end with the unpleasantcharacters and the overuse of street slang.Note to the writer: throwing in gratuitous sex scenes might be a gooddiversion, but it can't distract us if the plot is poor and theperformances aren't up to standard. It's also slightly ironic how thissupposed celebration of 'girl power' is probably one of the most sexistfilms I've seen in it's depiction of women as either dumb bimbos or sexobsessed lesbians. It's perfectly watchable, but I can't help thinkingthere are better movies on TV right now, more deserving of your time..5/10

2012-04-28 20:37:10

4. 3. 2. 1 star

A film following the lives of four London girl friends; Joanne (Emma Roberts (niece of Julia Roberts)), Shannon (Ophelia Lovibond), Kerrys (Shanika Warren-Markland) and Cassandra (Tamsin Egerton).All four are more interested in having a good time than being concerned about anyone other than themselves. They are all hard to like characters.What is interesting is the film breaks into four intertwining stories, each following one of the girls, and how they occasionally re-interact with one of the other leading characters.It starts with them all going to their respective homes to find something happened. With Shannon, it's to discover her mum is leaving home for a younger man, but she's explained everything in a note that ends up being in Cassandra's bag. The passage of the note back to Shannon forms a smaller interweaving thread.Kerrys is a anti-man lesbian. Cassandra is looking to go to New York to both audition for a piano part and to meet someone in the flesh who she has only known over the inter-net. Joanne has to work extra shifts now that her dad has lost his job due to an accident.Further complicated is another thread interlocking the four stories; that of a diamond heist. The diamonds are hidden in a Pringles packet and Pringles appears throughout the film.Unfortunately none of the main characters are likable. The story thread involving the diamonds is also highly contrived.What is interesting is the odd assortment of other people in minor roles:Kevin Smith as Big Larry, rapper Eve as Latisha, Mandy Patinkin as Jago Larofsky, (Star Trek:Deep Space Nine's) Alexander Siddig as Mr. Jauo-Pinto, Sean Pertwee as Mr. Richards.

johnnyboyz 2012-04-28 10:00:45

3 films Clarke is synonymous with. 2 of which were highly accomplished bordering on very good. 1 misfire here, which isn't without merit but is lacking in the long run.

4.3.2.1. is Noel Clarke's latest in low-level set, juvenile drivencriminal shenanigans on the streets of London, and, hark, the expandingto that of New York (no doubt for the American market). The effort is apiece which needed more of a reigning in, more of a delicate attitudetowards the sorts of expansive and sporadic material writer/directorClakre takes on and as a result the film ends up a flitting, spittingpiece; a film which darts around covering an array of varying storiesand strands of varying content, most of which is intelligible, butalmost all of which eventually comes to feel inconsequential. It is theresult of the ever escalating career of British filmmaker and producerNoel Clarke, his 2006 debut Kidulthood a rather paralysingly terrifyinginsight into the world of inimical kids running riot; his 2007 followup branching out more into character and framework linked to redemptionand causality.The film covers, taking clear glee in establishing, '4' girls over '3'nights in '2' cities; but only with the '1' chance, remember. It's sadand a little surprising to report that none of the lead four girls areparticularly interesting above a certain level. The best character inthe film, the character whose plight resonates with us the most, is theBrazilian father, played by Alexander Siddig, of one of the four girlsin Kerrys (Warren-Markland) and her volatile brother, whose painedexpression and agonisingly pacifist approach to his family affects usmost as he, like us, looks out and around at the ever-decaying worldinhabited by ever-decaying people around him in the exact manner we do.With Kerrys comes Emma Roberts' Joanne; wiry, upper-class blondeCassandra (Egerton), who's got a big trip to America lined up, andyoung Shannon (Lovibond) who's going through a tough time in life,unaided by her parent's separation. Their lives in England consist ofusual fare: college, driving lessons, odd jobs in 24/7 corner shops andtrips to the swimming centre; Cassandra even appears to play the pianowhen at home, one session of which concludes with her butler clappingvery slowly, even sarcastically, as she appears to very slowlyunderstand how to do it. Things appear to kick off for the worse when,upon leaving a café, during which Kerrys establishes an earlycharacteristic of empowerment when foiling a mugger after a friend'sbag, a diamond robbery occurs a hundred feet away and upon theirrespective escape, one is dropped into Shannon's bag.The opening story is Shannon's, an intimate enough portrayal of a younggirl going through some tough times as friends and parents appear toshoulder her out of their lives; the closing story is Jo's crimeinfused tale of gangsters, heister's and romance, most of everythingBritain based pretty much told as kitchen sink drama for the BBC Threegeneration. Inbetween, we cover the tribulations of young Cassandra andher trip to New York for a piano playing trial that might see hergarner entrance to an elite school; along the way, a rendez-vous withan Internet contact spelling disaster. The film is not utterly devoidof ideas in this regard nor on this strand, Cassandra's story a sternenough deconstruction about the dangers to do with cyberspace identityno doubt rife within the universe of the people 4.3.2.1. is aimed at;her uncovering of a sordid plot to do with stalker-like obsession seesher initially land in New York to a chirpy soundtrack and a string offamiliarised New York iconography which eventually gives way to a taleof terror that is mostly stupid but engages on a basic enough level.The film appears to empower women as much as it distinguishes the menas vile, corrupt, pig-headed morons whom are mostly amoral, creepy orjust plain evil. In 4.3.2.1., the women are humanised and feel on somevery deep levels, be it in the form of suicidal ideation or angrily andpowerfully in reaction to a man's advances, particularly on oneoccasion when that character was previously established as somewhatintroverted in this sense. It's an idea driven by the character ofKerrys whom predominantly takes on the role of warrior woman and isgranted additional points of interest when it transpires the strongestcharacter in the film is additionally homosexual. The notion issomewhat sadly contradicted by the fact Clarke has Kerrys and herpartner as the item of the male gaze, objectifying some of her and hergirlfriend's more intimate scenes while more often than not, on a muchbroader scale, manipulates the script so as to be able to shootextended sequences of them wearing next to nothing.There was always a recognisable sense in Clarke's previous projects,particularly Kidulthood, of the man shooting everything through a hazyfilter of remorse and sadness; a depression at the fact he knows theywere a rather accurate representations of Britain's youth and the itemsit faces. His latest, this 2010 effort, is bouncier in this regard;more upbeat and throw-away, as if the detailing of these seedy peopleand their seedy lives has given way to the concentration on the wackysituations that pop up and the sordid manner in which it's allconnected with everything - most of the characters here just feel'placed' in amidst the middle of it all for good measure. The openingheist gone-wrong sequence is unfolded and placed on the back-burner,but is curiously forgotten about by around the hour mark; that sense ofvery little of it really all that intrinsically linked to most ofwhat's happening starting to feel prominent. Along the way, a lot ofcharging about with nary a lot accomplished is the order of the day,the strands fluctuating from standing deathly still doing nothing todarting along at a break-neck rate; very little of it all thatinteresting and by the time Jo's strand has kicked in, the gimmickreally just wearing out its welcome.

JoeytheBrit 2012-04-25 05:36:09

5.

I read somewhere that Noel Clarke decided to write a film in which thefour main characters were women because he was regularly knocked forhis weak writing of female characters. Well, if that's the case, hestill hasn't managed to snub a nose at his detractors with thisgimmicky crime thriller that has four sassy girls getting caught up inthe aftermath of a jewel robbery.While the film is entertaining enough (after a slow start), the storydoesn't really make a lot of sense – something that isn't helped by thefact that Clarke elects to employ a non-chronological narrative whichtakes us back over the events of an eventful weekend as experienced byeach of the girls. Clarke also gives himself too much to do with a castthat is about half-a-dozen characters too large. Despite this, there'sample evidence of Clarke's growing talents as both writer and director– and he's by far the best actor in the film.

Gemma Gemma 2012-04-24 21:18:29

well done to the little British film

I thought the movie was packed full of ambition. 4.3.2.1 is big scopefilm on a really small budget. The structure was interesting andunique, and it seems like the director is trying to push the boat outfor Brit cinema. The acting was strong, Emma being the best of thegirls and Adam D. was great in his role. Although larger than life, the story held together well. Theinteraction between the story lines was fun. The viewer finds out theimportance of little details as the story unfolds. For instance, at thebeginning of the film the gang of boys crash into the girlsaccidentally dropping something into Cass's bag in the panic, then it'shalf way through the film when we finally find out it was one of thestolen diamonds. It was these little links that I found most engaging. This is certainly one for under-25-ers, but if you're after a bit of aromp it's worth a watch.