Pluskylang Great Film overall

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

SnoopyStyle Violet (Alexis Bledel) and Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) are two innocent looking hired guns. Daisy just turned 18. They worship style icon Barbie Sunday. Russ (Danny Trejo) has an easy gig for them. The Guy (James Gandolfini) stole from their boss Chet. However the job gets a little more complicated.Precious screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher tries to do a Tarantino style assassin movie. He has the central concept of girls with guns. He brings in a Gilmore Girl and the great Saoirse. He has Gandolfini who always has his A game. However he doesn't have the sharp quirky dialog or any new inventive style. This is rather bland. Despite all the great pieces, it doesn't add up to anything interesting.

Prismark10 Violet (Alexis Bledel) and Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) are a pair of gum chewing teenage hit women dressed as nuns who casually kill bad guys in New York. They take on a new hit to snuff out a mystery man (James Gandolfini) who crossed some villains and seems rather serene to his fate.This encounter to a man who casually awaits his death gives both young women a period of reflection. They are both overgrown girls and also emotionally retarded. They ride to hits on tricycles, jump on beds excitedly to the pop sounds of the latest teen idol and are deadly with a gun. The film does not progress much more than that and gives little depth to their characters and motivations. Rather disappointing as the writer/director wrote the Oscar winning screenplay to Precious.The film is a sub Quentin Tarantino rip off and an out of date one by 15 years. We see scenes of hits replayed from various angles and slow motion. We see people acting wacky giving us wisecracks and talking cute but it never amounts to much. Its just a boring and bad film instead of being hip and cool.Its a shame as James Gandolfini and Marianne Jean-Baptiste do their best to lift this botched film.

noelcox This is a great little film, quirky and intelligent. It is not your typical assassin film, and it may be too eccentric for some people's taste, but I enjoyed it. There are many levels to the story - without giving anything away - and it can be enjoyed on several levels. The teenage assassins are delightfully ruthless yet - at least at times - also endearingly vulnerable. All the leads give good performances, and Ronan and Gandolfin both give especially good performances. It is quite bloody, in a literal and figurative sense, but not gratuitously. I was disappointed that it wasn't critically acclaimed and that it didn't do well at the box office - the latter may have been been due to poor marketing. I really enjoyed it, though it wasn't a masterpiece, it was entertaining.

gavin6942 Two teenage assassins accept what they think will be a quick-and-easy job, until an unexpected target (James Gandolfini) throws them off their plan."Violet & Daisy" received mostly negative reviews; it received a rotten rating of 24% on Rotten Tomatoes. How this happened is unknown, because I think it is rather outstanding in its own way.Alexis Bledel is probably best known for the quirky role of Rory Gilmore in the "Gilmore Girls". While she was excellent in that, she had a rather limited range. This takes her outside of that, with a darker tone and a different brand of comedy. I thought it was hilarious.The use of flower names was clever and not at all annoying like it could be, even when the third girl (Rose) is added in. They also happen to share names with Daisy and Violet Hilton, well-known Siamese twins. Was this intentional? Probably not, but it seemed like an interesting take to me.Matt Zoller Seitz sums the film up this way: "Gandolfini's quietly magnificent performance is the only reason to see 'Violet & Daisy,' a thriller that might as well have been released in 1996, when everybody and their brother and their sister and their cousin twice-removed was trying to be Quentin Tarantino, writing screenplays about loquacious hit men and gangsters and molls delivering cutesy monologues in wacky, not-quite-real universes." I see what he is getting at, but why must the best type of film from the 90s remain in the 90s? This is more than a rip off or homage to Tarantino, but a worthy spiritual successor.