Diagonaldi Very well executed

Micransix Crappy film

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

MartinHafer In the 1950s, Timothy Farrell appeared in a string of exploitation films, such as "Glen or Glenda", "Jail Bait" (both by Ed Wood) and "Racket Girls". The films were universally trashy, poorly made and highly salacious....just the sorts of cult films bad film fans love to watch! So, when I saw he was one of the stars of "Gun Girls", and I am a bad film buff, I knew I had to see it!The film purports to be a film about the 'teenage problem' by showing a lot of actresses (all appearing to be in the 25-40 year age bracket) engaged in various petty as well as violent crimes. And, as the narrator says, the girls(?) know how to 'roll a marijuana'! For the most part, the ladies in the story confine their criminal activities to armed robberies and assaults...with the help of a sleazy fence (Farrell). However, when they get tired of splitting the loot with the fence, they considering going into business for themselves. What's next? Watch the picture and find out for yourself.While there is some very bad acting by some of the folks in the film, it's not nearly as awful as the worst of Timothy Farrell's work. Now I am NOT saying the acting is good...just not as awful as it could have been. The same goes for the script--it's bad but could have been more salacious and slap-dash...though it's far from great! I laughed at how poorly written these 'teen bad girls' were...and are among the stupidest criminals you'll ever see...leaving many witnesses, fingerprints and even a gun at the scene of a crime! Master criminals they are NOT! If you love bad exploitation films, "Gun Girls" is worth seeing. Plus, being not THAT awful, it's also a bit more watchable than many in the genre. Still, the average person would not enjoy the movie and would find it very tough to finish the picture. Watch at your own risk!By the way, if you'd like to play a drinking game while watching "Gun Girls", take a shot for each instance where one of the girls takes off her top for absolutely no reason!

Michael_Elliott Gun Girls (1957) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Joy (Eve Brent) and Dora (Jacueline Park) are juvenile delinquents who decide to step up their game by buying a couple guns from local hood Joe (Timothy Farrell). Before long the two ladies rob a gas station and then set their sites on something bigger.If you're wanting a hard-hitting drama that takes a look at how troubled youths can go bad then I'd highly recommend REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. The success of that film pretty much blew the doors down for low-budget filmmakers who could show teens doing bad things and of course paying a price for it. There were countless exploitation movies in the 1950s that had the whole "violent girls" thing going for it and GUN GIRLS is one of the more entertaining ones.I called the film entertaining but there's no question that it's far from a good movie. The amount of entertainment you take from it will certainly depend on your tastes but me personally, I really enjoyed the film for what it was. This was 67-minute movie with some campy performances, a melodramatic story and a fun nature that at least managed to keep me entertained. There are some campy moments throughout the film but I'd say the biggest laugh comes from them trying to place the film in New York when it's clearly California.Both Brent and Park (working under different names) are entertaining enough in their roles and at least add some fun to the characters. Of course, the highlight is Farrell who once again plays a chain-smoker who is pretty much kept to one setting for the entire film. You have to wonder if all of his scenes were simply shot in one day with just a couple costume changes to make it look different. I've always had a lot of fun whenever Farrell is on screen during his movies and that is true here as well.

GUENOT PHILIPPE I wouldn't say it's pure crap, but certainly this item has touched the bottom of the bottom, the grade Z genre depths, I mean. And I just discovered the director, this dude seems highly interested in girls, juvenile deliquants ones. But I prefer GIRLS ON THE LOOSE, directed by Paul Henreid, far far better, and speaking of real hard and tough girls involved in crime. We could say it's a sort BLING RING before its time.The perfect example of Exploitation stuff from the late fifties. Interesting for die hard diggers. But you can live without it. I don't think I will fight with my bare hands to get the others features from this poor man's Ed Wood.

davepitts Understand that my 8 is based on delectably bad elements: 1- Another blase performance by the wonderful Timothy Farrell, who, like Lyle Talbot and Cameron Mitchell in their cheese decades, tells you that you're in Bad Movie Territory. Farrell is always chain smoking in crummy little office or apartments sets in his movies, always playing the wise guy and telling other characters to shut up. 2- Multiple scenes of the "girls" changing blouses so they can strip down to Playtex bras for the 1957 teen boy audience. 3- Towards the end, as the cops chase the girl gang down the highway, there must have been a funding shortfall in the production. There's a cut from the chase to a newspaper headline, something like "GIRL GANG HEADS FOR MOUNTAINS"; then you're back to real time and the girls are still on the lam, then a second headline about the girls driving off the side of the mountain -- as if the late editions were being published during the high-speed chase!! Good black 'n' white cheese from the Eisenhower years. And ooooh those vixens!!!