Violet & Daisy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.