User Reviews (57)

Add a Review

  • gollumsdildo8 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!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • 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.
  • SpookyPie8812 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.
  • maryhall20107 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.
  • 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
  • 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...
  • 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!
  • 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!
  • 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 ---
  • messidor683 June 2010
    this movie is extremely low in term of acting skills and maybe with emma roberts who i believe shes as good as her aunt ..anyway poor lesbian act ,,nothing sexy about this film ,,and you are wondering where is going to lead ...there is few funny moments ,and i do like the music and some good image ,but atherwise its one of the worst film i have seen this year so far ...and am so surprise that someone like noel clarke didn't do many screening test ,and had the support of the studios or anybody else ...because in my opinion this movie could have been done with a better cast and also better script and location ...am disappointed there is no chemistry with the 4 girls and some of the love scene are really bad ..... with so many talented actors and actresses in this country its pity to see that this film has lost so much of potential by having poor actors ,,and you are also wondering about the plot what the movie is about ....anyway not good enough for DVD or going to cinema ...just a really bad film ......
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • LivingZombie6 December 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • Robert617939 December 2013
    Warning: Spoilers
    Nothing left unexplained. I had an absolute ball watching. Okay so it flashes back more than a digital camera however something about that amused me and kept me eager to find out how that fits in the sequence. I love the filming technique. I will be the first to admit that I was confused. Thankfully as soon as I thought it didn't make sense I was like "oh, that makes sense, now I get it". Brilliant! I must be a critic, because i critically claim I am glad I watched it. Very complex and covers a lot of hot discussion topics. I really only watched it for Emma but I found that all the cast is pretty good at doing there thing. So if I got mad when Joanne couldn't do her bathroom thing that's understandable right? I don't know what else to say it was a smart film that kept me hyped up and interested in finishing. As soon as it was over I thought, again!? Round of applause keep the Pringles coming!
  • 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.
  • An embarrassment to the long history of great British crime films. With a nod and many unfortunate winks this film is something along the lines of "Snatch" got drunk and shagged "Charlie's Angels" in a parking and this is the off shot.

    Emma Roberts manages to have some charm. But on the whole this film tries way too hard to be way to cool and even the (Viagra) humor isn't funny. Racial, sexual and ethnic stereotypes abound, while pretending it's just so 'aware' that it's above such contrivances, this film pulls them 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 maybe the exception of Emma Roberts performance) charm, wit, soul, depth or dialog.

    Not worth the two hours. Watch "GO" again. Or better yet watch 11:14 they are both structurally similar but so much better.
  • 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 :)
  • Been a long while since I saw a movie that was fun to watch and also original. I've had it with all the Hollywoodfilm clichés. I gave it nine 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 the Hollywood clichés. Maybe I've seen too much American movies and should I 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 movie is about, than that's enough isn't it? Well it that case something about the actors. They performed really well. The characters are well done, really convincing and realistic. Likeyour girl next door. My compliments.

    Have I've reached my ten lines yet? I'm no good in counting. Well let's post it man. It says congretulations, so finally I've done something good in live! But I've to submit it it again. All these safety things.. so American :-(
  • roland-14130 May 2010
    OK the plot is a little improbable and the trailer gives you the idea its a heist movie which it definitely isn't. Actually what you get is a classy looking movie with some slick camera work, clever story telling, excellent post production technique, some good action, witty dialogue and several very good cameo performances (I particularly liked the security guard in the supermarket and Kevin Smith as a package courier)

    You are never short of something to look at. Of the four girls Ophelia Lovibond puts in a very credible performance but the money for the eye candy has been spent on Emma Roberts and I'm certainly not complaining about that and Tamsin Egeron has legs that can only be described as proverbial and can act too.

    I'd have preferred Noel Clarke not to have tried his hand at writing any feminist lines as this is clearly not his forte.

    All bar one or two of the male roles show men as stupid violent sexist and racist or as maudlin and depressed. Fathers in particular get a bad press. But in the context of this movie I don't have a problem with that.

    We hear the sequel 5.4.3.2.1 is in the offing so Universal must like what Noel has done. And I think this film will pull in the audiences.

    In short if you're out for a good romp and you are under 30 or older and in a state of extended adolescence you are probably in for a good time. Buy your pop corn sit back and enjoy.
  • Not being a lover of Noel Clarke's previous films or any film based around stereotypical 'chavvy' characters. I found this film exciting, engaging and humorous...a perfect mix for a film.

    This film deviates from the typical 'British realism' category and creates a new one which combines the best aspects of both British and Hollywood cinema. The story is unbelievable in hindsight but what Hollwood film isn't? You don't even worry about this point while watching as you get so immersed in the action.

    The acting is fab. Some upcoming talent notably the actress playing 'Cassandra' who I believe made her debut in St. Trinians. The script, although forcedly 'street' sometimes, had some fantastic comedic moments (security guard being one) which was successfully constructed by Clarke.

    The characters were varied and Michelle Ryan's character again brought a touch of Hollywood to this film. Well round characterisation all round pulled off by a talented cast. The story was extremely clever with the non linear arrangement. Not at all hard to understand and showed a creativeness in Clarke that was needed.

    Problems I have with this film however is the extremely unnecessary and drawn out sex scenes. Why? I would also like to see Noel Clarke write something a little different as he is a talented writer/director and should from now on steer clear from the same type of characters (male ones particularly) who are very much like those in KIDULTHOOD.

    Overall, BEST FILM I've seen this year....hooray for the return of the Brits!!
  • Leofwine_draca9 January 2014
    4.3.2.1 seems to think it's a hip, fresh, non-linear Brit crime thriller, a work of originality and verve. After all, the man behind it is Noel Clarke, who in KIDULTHOOD and ADULTHOOD made a pair of decent and modern urban dramas. Sadly, everything about this movie is a huge mistake, and it ends up as an extraordinarily superficial copy of Tarantino's masterwork PULP FICTION.

    The major problems with this film are the story and script, which both go nowhere. The "leads" are a group of dim, twentysomething girls living in London, their stories told individually and linking up at various points. Sexual exploitation, robbery, lesbianism and family drama are some of the topics covered, but they're all handled in the most mundane and unengaging way imaginable.

    It doesn't help that the characters are puerile, obsessed with the shallow pursuit of pleasure and thus giving the viewer no reason to get behind them. There's an unwelcome whiff of exploitation to the proceedings with one character (Shanika Warren-Markland) forced to spend the majority of her screen time in her underwear.

    The performances are terrible, particularly from the ultra-grating Emma Roberts (an actress who only exists thanks to nepotism) and the aforementioned Warren-Markland, although CAMELOT's Tamsin Egerton isn't much better. The format is peppered with more seasoned actors like Sean Pertwee and Kevin Smith, but they also ring hollow thanks to the moronic dialogue they're handed out. 4.3.2.1 truly is a stupid and offensively crass piece of movie-making.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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. ***
  • 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.
  • mjturny235 June 2010
    It is rare to see strong, interesting and individual female roles in film. This film delivers four.

    The film is pure excitement from start to finish, with a well polished script, superb acting and more story in each of the four segments than you would see in most films.

    I can definitely see the Tarrantino inspiration, but nothing in this film feels familiar. I haven't see Noel Clark's other movies but I will be 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 the British charm but feels like it's on a major American studio budget.

    Highly recommended!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've not watched Adulthood or Kidulthood so perhaps I might have missed out on some background information on this film, but I thought this was a load of rubbish. There are some scenes that so disbelieving that there was no way I could take this film seriously. For example there was a scene where one of the main female character was upset for some reason 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 unaware that she's is there. No they didn't have white sticks either. Then while 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 was two tall men and one upset girl with big coat and bag!

    The main part of this storyline is some stolen diamonds. So where and how do they get these stolen diamonds? Outside Westfields where a guy hands a bag of them to one 'badguy1' to which badguy1 then slowly examines one of the diamonds by holding up to the light in broad daylight..... outside the busy Westfields..... in front of all the shoppers and the four girls there.... stolen diamonds.....

    I got up to 20 minutes of the DVD and couldn't take anymore. Everyone tries too hard, so I guess this was an instruction from the producers or writers of this script than poor acting. It felt like an Eastenders version of Sex of the City with some over hyped view of 'estate ganstas'.
An error has occured. Please try again.