Avis des utilisateurs

I had great expectations for this movie. I mean, how could you miss with the great James Gandolfini and wonderful Saoirse Ronan as headliners (and Alexis Bledel is certainly eyeworthy), and yet the first time through this film I did not enjoy the experience. Then it dawned on me, well, duh, this film is intended to be a Tarantino parody, and it went up several stars in my estimation. Of course, making a parody of a QT film is problematic, because Quentin films are already parodies of other genres such as kung fu, grindhouse, and noir. And so, in a sense, the filmmaker is making a parody of a parody. I mean, Saoirse playing patty-cakes with Danny Trejo? The scene is totally Quentinesque to a ludicrous extreme. And that's parody.

Other motifs that echo and exaggerate Tarantino's style include the implausible violence sequences that can only exist in some alternate film universe (think Black Mamba single-handedly wiping out a small army of yakuza in "Kill Bill,") and the interminable gabfest that fills out a QT script (these people love to talk and talk and talk)... And so, as a parody of a parody, and for its very impressive cast, this film is worth an amused watch.

Violet & Daisy is about 2 teen girls assassins who take on one last job in order to buy some dresses they really want. This is the first movie I watched from writer/director Geoffrey Fletcher, reviewing his profile he didn't do much else beside this movie and you can kinda tell.

The movie is somewhat disjointed and the script feels like it's been written by a 12 year old girl. Strangely enough the somewhat childish dialogue and behaviour of the characters combined with the well-done action/violence kinda works for this movie and I was quite sucked in. The 2 teenage assassins played by Alexis Bledel and Saoirse Ronan are well cast and perfectly fill the role of naive assassins.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone expecting an action flick or a deep/moral story. If you're just looking for an easy to watch movie with some good-looking young woman you'll probably like it 7/10

What a poetic massacre drama! I love the absurd pitch - it is crazy. Love the girls motivated by getting a dress and the assassin crying behind the trash after an intimidating encounter. It's like a Japanese manga. This is so much fresher than a Tarantino, I like better this genre ! Tarantino takes himself way too seriously ! I regret though that the girls seem to not be enough professional, and that there was not more action. I really missed the action ! But the poetic sweet mood is very innovating, I'd like more of this please. Loved this line "What's with the cookies?! Wait, what if it's only the tip of the iceberg? What if he also makes brownies ???" Excellent !

I had the chance to check out Geoffrey Fletcher's directorial debut on its premiere at the Toronto Film Festival and I was blown away. Geoffrey Fletcher is known as the Academy winning screenwriter of the film Precious, and his debut as a director took me by surprise because it did not at all offset any element from his writing work on Precious. He goes from social consciousness, inner-city story, black American social issues, etc.. and does a complete 180 degrees to create a world where two (white) teenage girls go on killing sprees for a living. but then again, Precious was adapted from a book, so he can kind of get away with this. Nevertheless, this really took me by surprise!

Alexis Bledel and Saoirse Ronan play the title characters, who seem like they spun out of a Tarantino movie. Violet and Daisy are hit girls in New York, casually amoral about assignments with their only real concern being what dresses to buy with the pay. The movie unfolds in 10 chapters with the first being the most Tarantino-esque, which actually establishes the wrong tone for what is to come. Saoirse Ronan will definitely be mentioned come award time! I must admit that the film was entertaining and filled with great comedic timing and actions scenes that came straight out of a Tarantino flick. In fact, If I didn't know who had directed this film, my first guess would be Quentin Tarantino. Violet and Daisy are given a new assignment — an easy one for an increase in pay,they are assured — takes the film into much trickier terrain. The target, played as a wry and rumpled sad sack by James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) actually welcomes the girls' visit to his dumpy apartment. This bothers them: Shooting a willing victim seems unprofessional. The movie now devolves into a three-hander, with any number of incidents and other "guests" causing interruptions but the movie essentially becomes a play and delves into a poetic set of scenes filled with symbolic imagery to reveal each character's motives in life. The key confrontation in this life-or-death situation between killers and a eager victim forces self-examination on the parts of all three.

I applaud Fletcher's first effort, but can't really define him until I see more from him, which should be interesting to see what's next.

this movie has almost it all. it includes friendship, money problem AND killing.. it's not a lame romantic movie, it makes you think and it is beautiful done! you should give it a try. I mean it's about two teenage girls who are not sure what to do with life and they are just trying to get enough money so they can buy some dresses, but when they think that all they have to do is kill someone they're wrong because it's so much more than that... they're about to learn such a big part in life and accepting how things are, try to make the most of the situation. this might not be a movie you'll re-watch but it's really enjoyable and very beautiful done. it's a movie which will leave you not empty, but not full it will leave you thinking.

The movie is great at its best moments. And almost boring to death (no pun intended) in its worst. It's almost a shame that it does not find a way to stay even throughout. The two main actresses (Kudos for going that way, which also provides the movie with some of its best moments) are very different from each other. I'm not saying it's borderline cliché, but some people may expect a lot of the "twist" turns in the plot that the filmmaker thought of.

So while I would have loved to like it even more (I still think it's a decent movie overall), there are too many moments in it, that just don't work. On other news, it seems like someone was watching the Sopranos! You're not only getting Mr. Soprano himself (Mr. Gandolfini) in a completely different role, but you also get one of the regulars from that show to appear here.

The movie starts with a great promise and packed with action. The idea of using innocence with cruelty is a great one. the cinematography is great too but once the story stays in one place for a long time than it gets a little bit boring. As soon as we learn why Gandolfini wants to die the movie is about good as over however it goes on for another 45 minutes or so.

I think Geoffrey Fletcher missed the point on this one. This could've been an action packed piece with a heart without being boring. It seems that he just didn't know how to achieve that sort of a formula.

However, this movie is not a total waste of time. It still has some interesting moments and good montage. Worth a watch.

Too Cute by Two, this is Another in the Girls with Guns Subgenre that can be Entertaining like Hana (2011) and Kick-Ass (2010). It also Borrows Heavily from that Tarantino Sensibility of Colorful Excess and Slightly Removed Ambiance. But there is Little Wit here that makes these Things Joyful Jaunts into Comic-Book Land.

The Movie Looks Good and the Actors All seem to be On but the Story is so Weak and the Dialog so Trite and the Side Characters and Stories are so Uninteresting that the Film comes off as an Idea not Realised and a Script from the Reject Pile that was Dusted Off but Never Polished.

In the End it is Attractive Visually but is not At All as much Fun as it Thinks it is and that is definitive Pretentiousness. The Lollipop Licking and the Bubble-Gum Blowing are more Cringe than Creative and more Obvious than Clever.

It is a Misfire that Overall, it really doesn't Matter because the Film is Shooting Blanks.

First when the movie started, I was like...Okay well, it's not the kind of movie I'm used to watch but anyway, there was Saoirse Ronan in it and I've never seen a movie with her by the past so anyway just let's keep watching. I watch and when action starts, at the very beginning of the movie, I'm laughing, I think it's the weirdest thing I've seen since a long time but something catches me...Something tells me " just watch it ". And this part of me was right. The movie is excellent! More the story goes and more you love it. It's crazy but Violet and Daisy is the only movie of its kind. It surprises you because of many weird scenes and epic quotes (no spoilers here) and the ton of the film... I don't know - there is really something in that movie. I am serious when I say these words : it's a must watch. For me, it was the first time that I was watching a movie like that and well I don't regret it. I think that it's now in my top 10. So if you don't know what to think about this film or anything, don't mind, just watch it. You have to. It's a really great film. So I give it 10 stars because it's a pure surprise and seriously, I've never seen anything like that.

PS: just don't watch trailers for this movie (it's my advice) because I just found it here, without knowing what it was and I watched it - that way you really keep the surprise a surprise.

"I know we gotta off him 'cause that's what we gotta do, but I don't want to do it until I know why he wants us to do it." Violet (Bledel) and Daisy (Ronan) are young girls who are best friends and assassins. When they see dresses they want they decide to take one more job in order to be able to pay for them. What is supposed to be a quick one shot one kill job becomes complicated when they start to talk to their mark. They start to become involved in his life and that changes their feelings about what they are supposed to do. There are some movie I watch based on the subject. Some I watch based off the cast. Then there are movies I watch because of one person. I have been a huge James Gandolfini since the first episode of The Sopranos. The movie on its own is pretty good and I did like it, but it's not a typical assassin movie. Do not go in expecting a shoot-em up action fest. This deals with more of a conversation between the three about why killing is the right thing to do. The assassins don't want to and the mark wants them to. Different but I liked it. Overall, not a typical assassin movie but worth seeing, especially for Gandolfini. I give it a B.

Violet & Daisy is a bold and compelling new film written and directed by the Oscar-winning screenwriter of Precious, Geoffrey Fletcher. The film is violent and funny but also has an emotional core that is unflinchingly true. The heroines of the film are wonderfully played by Saoirse Ronan and Alexis Bledel. Ronan brings her amazing skills as an actress and creates one of her most original and fully realized roles in the part of Daisy. Bledel brings her signature sense of humor but also unleashes her vicious side in a way that no one has ever seen before. The chemistry between the two stars is undeniable and from the first frame we are rooting for these two lost girls and their friendship. That Fletcher not only cast these two actors but also made us fall in love with them is a testament not only to the script but his skills as a director.

The dialogue in the film is witty, whimsical and complex, reminiscent of the banter from classics of the Hollywood Golden Age such as His Girl Friday combined with the existential questioning of a Godard film. The movie is packed with twists and turns, jokes and pathos and I know that I did not get everything on the first viewing. The film is visually stunning with intricately structured shots, long takes and juxtapositions, but every shot serves the film and creates a satisfying whole. Anyone paying attention will see that Fletcher possesses a new voice that is not afraid to take chances and those who watch and listen carefully will be rewarded with a movie experience that will go far beyond an initial viewing.

The cover of the dvd of Violet and Daisy would imply this is a high action drama. It's not. More action is talked about than actually happens. You need to enjoy the opening sequence if action is your thing, as it only repeats at a much lesser scale a couple of times more. We've seen unusual assassins in Hollywood before, as underlined by the popularity of Leon (1994). Killing Eve (2018) was probably influenced by this movie. The acting is good. The story is sweet, the script enjoyable. Essentially this is a story about re-enforcing relationships, discovering what is important. There is a tinkling soundtrack that adds to all this sweetness. The story almost comes undone as it relies almost entirely on the unusual nature of the assassins, basically, young femininity verses nonchalant cold bloodedness. The light hearted or unexpected moments come to the rescue, well timed. I liked the dream sequence and the Moon shot, you'll see what I mean, the filmmaker had an eye for art. Violet and Daisy is unusual idea done well.

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.

This film tell the story of two young assassins who encounter a difficult situation when they do a job to finance the newest designer dress.

"Violet & Daisy" starts off exciting and very promising, as it successfully plays on the contrast between the angelic and innocent faces of the two leading girls, and they violent nature of what they do. However, the greatness was not sustained, and there is much slack after the intense beginning. The plot just dragged on with a lot of unneeded conversation. Though such scenes are to show their developing ambivalence towards their target, it becomes tiring and irritating. Why can't they just do it already! I think "Violet & Daisy" is an adequate film, and I really enjoy the two leading girls' performances. However, if there is more action thrown in that delays their kill, instead of just talking all the time, it would have been much better.

Geoffrey S. Fletcher's oddball "Violet & Daisy" casts Alexis Bledel and Saoirse Ronan as a pair of assassins whose major target (James Gandolfini) proves to be a quandary. What makes the movie really interesting is the contrast between the title characters: Violet is the tough one, while Daisy is the impressionable one. But Gandolfini's Michael is another story.

This is not any sort of great movie. More than anything it's a quirky movie. I liked the side stories, such as what happens when the title characters go out to buy bullets. But the movie's main purpose is to show the evolution of the title characters' relationship with their target. It's an OK movie. Also starring Danny Trejo and Marianne Jean-Baptiste (of "Secrets & Lies").

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.

I thought this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I got it mainly because I was looking for more things that the Orphan Black chick is in, and because it had the late, great Mr. Gandolfini. Well, Tatiana is in the movie for about 60 seconds, for one thing.

Sometimes movies can be outrageous and unrealistic and still work because of elements of style, great dialogue, etc., but this movie was just stupid. It had tiny bits of style, e.g., the scenes when they were dressed up as nuns on a job. But, the situation, the writing, the nonsensical decision making...it was just too much.

I don't think Alexis Bledel did anything to make it better. Maybe if they had a more likable person in that role it would have helped. I recommend that you don't waste your time, unless you really miss Tony Soprano and just fast forward to all of his speaking parts.

'Violet and Daisy' tells the story of a pair of teenage assassins who get more than they bargained for on their latest job, namely someone who actually WANTS to be assassinated.

Now, the first question you may ask if you hear that is WHY does the 'mark' want to be 'offed' by a pair of gin-totting adolescents. And it's a good question. However, despite the two girls staying with their man for most of the film, they don't seem to get round to asking him. Then, when you do finally find out (about three quarters of the way through the film) there isn't really anywhere else left to go.

It starts off well enough. I found the opening kind of similar to Guy Ritchie's 'Snatch' as the two girls disguise themselves and chat happily on their way to their first 'job' of the day. However, despite all the nice talk, the dialogue isn't ever quite as snappy as a Guy Ritchie or Tarrantino film.

All the performances are good and James Gandolfini deserves a special mention, as he does his character with a lot of pathos, helped no small part by the fact that, in the film, he wants to die and, not long after, he sadly got his wish in real life.

Whereas the film could have explained, or possibly delved into how using teenagers (who are still just about young enough to be considered – sort of – innocent), it never really touches on the subject, choosing to string the story out as to why James Gandolfini wants to die for as long as possible.

It's not a bad film, but it could have either done with being cut down by about half to make it tighter, or taken in a more focused direction.

In the end it ends up as a sort of half-hearted homage to a Guy Ritchie/Tarrantino film that never really lives up to its potential.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

The two 'heroines' of this piece make for the most unconvincing hitpeople I've ever seen in any media, but that isn't really the point. The fact is, this is supposed to be a JOKE... that these two girlie girls who seem obsessed with all things cute and feminine, are so relaxed and detached from their everyday job of laying out their targets on a slab. We're meant to find their quirks endearing too, I guess... such as in the opening scene, when they're dressed as nuns delivering a pizza (with machine gun hidden underneath, of course.) But, does it work?

Not in the slightest. The dialogue is self-consciously wacky, to a degree that we KNOW we're not watching flesh and blood individuals, but characters dreamed up by a bad scriptwriter that lack any validity whatsoever. People come and go, either being shot by our feisty duo or uttering a few lines before disappearing for good. They all have one thing in common though: never doing anything or saying anything remotely interesting, in what is a tedious slog of a motion picture which will be testing the strength of your eyelids from the get-go.

The late great James Gandolfini plays their latest victim, a terminally ill crook who seems remarkably at peace with his fate. In a better written film, his conversations of life and love with the girls might have been moving passages. Instead, they come across as forced and unemotional garbage, and because they take up most of the length, only add to the feeling you could be doing something much better with your hollow life. In fact, with three characters named after flowers (Daisy, Violet, Rose) all we needed was a Hyacinth to complete the Bucket Sisters from the classic sitcom Keeping Up Appearances.

Useless trivia, I know. But FAR more intriguing to dwell on than anything else in this snore inducing cure for insomnia. 2/10

As the Toronto International Film Festival approaches, the film I'm still thinking about from last year's TIFF is Violet & Daisy, Geoffrey Fletcher's fascinating directorial debut – a resonant tapestry of pulp, humor, tragedy and humanism.

Some have rushed to compare Violet & Daisy with other films featuring comely gun-toting young women such as Kick-Ass, Sucker Punch and Hanna. However, the aforementioned films differ greatly from Fletcher's offering in that they are pro-violent pieces of commerce whereas Violet & Daisy condemns violence through irony and artistry. It is a throwback to the daring American films of the 70's and 90's in both spirit and style while sampling bits of 50's and 60's world cinema (and surrealism). The result is a classically-informed modern mosaic.

Alexis Bledel, Saoirse Ronan and James Gandolfini, the three well-chosen and committed leads, are all playing against type in what may be the most interesting roles of their careers. Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Danny Trejo are also exceptional. Rising star Cody Horn appears briefly as a pop starlet. I found it odd to see such a diverse collection of talents working in harmony not only with one another but within this alternate universe.

In addition to its array of unexpected (and suspenseful) moments, the film meditates on friendship, girl power, materialism and regret. Throughout, Fletcher imbues striking compositions with symbolism while gracefully moving through a myriad of tones and genres. The use of music is extraordinary. All of these elements working in concert with the film's considerable humor and technical command create a singular experience. I have no memory of a recent independent film that was this daring, multi-layered and assured.

The film has yet to be reviewed widely but it is no coincidence that some of the most thoughtful early writing on it came days, not hours, after the first Toronto screening. Fletcher and his remarkable collaborators may have also provided us with a litmus (if not Rorschach) test for cinephiles and critics alike. All in all, perhaps a film this bold ought to polarize in an age of shrink-wrap cinema.

I remember how I first felt watching Godard's Breathless and Alphaville. They were so different from anything I'd ever seen that it was at first unsettling. Once I found a doorway into these new worlds, however, escape was impossible. I feel the same way about Violet & Daisy.

Violet and Daisy, oh dear. An interesting idea?... possibly; something different?... maybe but not in a good way; quirky?... tries to be but fails; worth watching?... I'd say absolutely not! I wanted to see this film because of Saoirse Ronan; she, as usual, is very accomplished but the story and script is just daft. 'Quirky' is one thing but it does have to backed up with a plot of substance not nonsense. Presumably this was written as a satirical take on 'the assassins' genre; if this was the intention then more wit and quip is sorely needed. Interestingly, the definition of pulp fiction is: "popular or sensational writing that is regarded as being of poor quality" and that, I'd say, is being generous with regard to this film!