Purple Violets (2007) User Reviews

Purple Violets Is A Nice Addition to the Burns Collection

[jimgleeson-1 · 7/10 · 21 November 2007]

I have to say, I liked "Brother's McMullen" and "She's The One" when they came out and find them to be in the same New York Tradition as a lot of the other dying breed of New York Romance genre films. I also enjoyed that I could download it via iTunes instead of having to make a day of it to see it at one of the few theaters that still shows independent movies.

Although not his best work, I think Purple Violets is still a laudable addition to Burns filmography.

In regards to the comments by Micheal C., I think he must have recently gotten a parking ticket, or woke up in bumper to bumper traffic because clearly he isn't seeing the same film as others. As far as the story not making any sense...what in particular didn't make any sense? In one story line you have a woman who is dealing with a husband who is increasingly unavailable and dealing with emotions from a love of her past.

In another storyline you have an alcoholic lawyer who is making amends with his past, and maybe hoping that in addition to forgiveness he can find his way back into the heart of the love of his life. You may think that the story is unrealistic, a skeptic or jaded person might even find the whole romantic aspect to it dated, but it hardly is nonsensical.

As far as Characters being obnoxious and performers overacting, and script rife with clichés? This comment writer must have been watching the latest iteration of Peter Pan or Tarzan, but certainly not this movie. Ed Burns himself cannot be considered an over actor. If anything he is usually more cognitive than emotive. I think that all the players, save Messing, stay well within acceptable norms of behavior in regards to "overacting." The only character I found to be uniformly obnoxious is Donal Logue, who played Blair's British husband, and he was supposed to be obnoxious. Interesting note: I have only seen my sister's husband who is a chef cook once and I have eaten with them many times. The last thing they want to do when home is cook anymore. Finally as far as cliché goes, each romantic movie is going to have a bit of cliché in it. But there is always the aspect of character to make it at least something to follow and get into, and I think the characters in this movie offer that, and in fresh new ways. Besides, you really can't have it both ways, either a script makes no sense (not cliché) or is predictable (cliche) you can't have it both ways. I think the film balances some age old romantic plot devices with some new fresh commentary on various aspects of modern life.

As far as it being the worst movie the writer had seen all year, the comment writer must not get out much. I have seen many worse movies over the span of the year. Some I have forgotten, others I wish I could forget.

I don't think the writer of said comments actually watched the movie and seemed more annoyed by small aspects of it. For instance, his wife does not catch him masturbating to internet porn, but to 900 numbers. And although one can be annoyed at people with money carping about unhappiness, it does happen. Money does not make problems go away.

Hate to say this, but not all writers sit around and bat witticisms to one another while sipping Manhattans, and I bet there are many lawyers who don't get that much into their clients business. Finally, it is a movie, if you wanted it to be a true life biography about a writer watch Faulkner week on the history channel.

That being said, it takes all kinds.

Purple Violets

[wingedheartart · 6/10 · 28 May 2009]

Well, I am not actually writing a spoiler, just commenting on the film. I am not a New York person, but enjoy movies based in/around New York. I am curious though, as to why so many movies or movies about Love seem kind of selfish. One thing that bothered me with this movie and with other similar movies...is if given a second or third chance at love with a person that obviously means VERY much to the other person, why throw it away because of needing space or time? Life is not stable....for the most part. We have no idea if we will be here tomorrow or if we will be able to tell those we love goodbye. So, why simmer in our own juices so to speak, when we have "found" love or the one we are meant to be with? That is what seemed selfish to me about some of the movie. Yes, it is "just" a movie, but it is trying to be a bit more than that..trying to show how we postpone/ruin/hurt our chances at love. I guess I'm saying, "Don't." If you click with someone and in a deep way, don't throw it away for ANY reason. Grab on, hold on, learn to share and be thankful for the gift. Love is an incredible gift. We screw it up and take it for granted, but instead of being narcissistic, SHARE yourself. That's all, didn't want to spoil the movie. It was quite good though, except for what I mentioned. We all think we have time "later" to do things....forgetting that "later" might not come at all.

Thanks.

If you like Edward Burns films, you will like this.

[kirkus910 · 7/10 · 30 January 2008]

I'm not sure what the deal was with the reviewer before me. Apparently Ed Burns must've urinate in his corn flakes the morning he wrote the review, because it is scathing and hardly true to the content of the film. Overall the movie plays similar to other Ed Burns films. The music selection is pretty good, and most of the storyline is contingent on the dialogue and character relationships. The lead roles were solid all around. Patrick Wilson, played his character effectively and simply, as necessary. Burns roll was reduced but still charming. Selma Blair was also convincing. The notion of Debra Messing looking like a man in drag is pretty far fetched. She looked great in the film, and her part was small but well played.

Referring to Edward Burns as being a women is way off course. The previous reviewer apparently came off of a 10 day Michael Bay film binge when he wrote his review, so obviously he would have no comprehension on what makes a film succeed. This movie has authentic dialogue with believable character dynamics, which is as much as you can ask for in any movie. As I mentioned before, if you like Edward Burns as an actor, director, or both, you will get enjoyment from this movie. If you are a JJ Abrams nut, can't understand how emotion and dialogue are used in a film, and are afraid to even fathom the notion of romance in the film, then you may not like this movie. You could always look up the previous reviewer and check out a Larry the Cable Guy film with him.

A fun time in New York

[lmayper · 8 May 2007]

Purple Violets opened to rave reviews from the home team at the Tribeca Film Festival at it's World Premiere on April 30. Ed Burns is in rare form as the Murph, a wise-cracking New York recovering alcoholic, trying to make amends. He tries to win back his ex, played by Debra Messing, who takes holding a grudge to new levels. Selma Blair is terrific as Patti, a writer suffering from writer's block. Patrick Wilson is very engaging as Brian, Patti's old boyfriend who tries to win her back. Donal Logue, who usually plays the nice guy, really shows his stuff as Chazz, Patti's cad of a husband. Always memorable, Dennis Farina, plays Patti's boss from hell.

I have always been a Burns fan, but found this film even wittier, faster, and funnier than expected. I especially liked the women talking about the men and the men talking about the women.

Funny and insightful with attractive settings

[phd_travel · 7/10 · 19 February 2016]

Found this Ed Burns movie funnier and more attractively filmed than some of his other movies. College girlfriends and boyfriends reconnect after 12 years. Some funny jokes about writing. It does show relationships from a guys point of view for a change. Liked the way Patrick Wilson's character was the good guy and Selma Blair's was the difficult one. There are many relationships like that.

Selma Blair is pretty here. Debra Messing comes off has hard. Ed Burns doesn't monopolize and that's good. His voice can be grating. The Hamptons house and apartments in the city are a nice backdrop.

Worth one watch.

Classic Burns

[donwc1996 · 7/10 · 4 January 2010]

I am a big Edward Burns fan - from day one when I saw The Brothers McMullen - which I thought was brilliant - and Burns' rapid rise in movies is the stuff dreams are made of - indeed, no one I can think of has the unprecedented career path that Burns has - if they'd made a movie about it no one would have believed it - in fact his Irish-Catholic-heterosexual slant on life is very endearing - he seems utterly incapable of writing gay characters since as far as I know he never has - I find his unabashed straightness amusing to say the least - but I think it would be nice if he at least tried to work a gay character into his stories - stretch a bit Ed - it won't kill you - in Purple Violets Burns goes all the way in writing about two very straight guys who are very best friends. What is Burns trying to do to us? He casts the best looking guy in movies (Patrick Wilson) along with himself (Burns) the second best looking guy in movies and together you can't take your eyes off them - what a pair - how could they keep their hands off one another - the only misstep in Purple Violets for me was the casting of Selma Blair's husband. He just did not work at all and that was a big disappointment. Selma Blair is a knock-out - why would she fall for a chunky nerd? Doesn't make sense.

Burns excels again!

[meeza · 10/10 · 5 September 2008]

There are some purple-people heartstring beaters which are entangled in New York romantic dilemmas that provide the film "Purple Violets" a proper cinematic blossom. The movie is the latest Writer-Director Edward Burns offering. Steady Eddie continues his streak as a master of developing relational narratives on the eccentricities of personal relationships between New Yorkans. The differential quality of "Purple Violets" contrary to most of Burns' past movies is that the central character here is a female. Selma Blair stars as Patti, a real estate agent who is in a quiescent entrapped marriage with an egoistic restaurateur. Patti is also a former author who craves returning to the literary form but lacks the inspiration. That is until she reunites with Brian Callahan, an old flame who also happens to be an acclaimed sleuth mystery writer. Brian's writing song these days is to formulate scribes on other relational themes that strike a writing chord with him. But unfortunately not for his fan base who crave for his detective novels; the book store signing scenes were a comedic delight. Michael "Murph" Murphy is Brian's BFF who morphs his life from an arrogant alcoholic college student to an arrogant non-alcoholic successful lawyer. Murph dated Patti's best friend Kate in college, but cheated her out of a potential nuptial if you get my adulterous drift. However, Murph now wants his Kate back and eat her too. Kate is a strident schoolteacher who does everything in her power to resist the Murphaleous charm. Patrick Wilson had the write stuff as the garrulous Brian and Edward Burns was a scene-stealer as the carefree Murph. And I am not going to even mess with Debra Messing's strong brassy performance as Kate. But the premier acting of "Purple Violets" came in the shape of Selma Blair's delicate but empowering stand-pat work as Patti. "Purple Violets" also had some fine supporting acting tulips as well from Dennis Farina as Patti's preaching boss Gilmore and Donal Logue as her overbearing husband Chazz. But at the end of the day what made these "Purple Violets" grow in out hearts was Burns' ingenious scribe and direction. His artistic message of creating movies for self-enrichment and acting in others for audience satisfaction is delivered wisely in the film. Do not violate your movie pleasure by not nourishing the "Purple Violets". Feed them now with your viewing! ***** Excellent

Thirty Somethings Reunite With Their True Loves.

[jehaccess6 · 5/10 · 4 August 2009]

I have watched this movie three times and still don't get the opening scene. Patti (Selma Blair) is wandering about the beach front property of Brian (Patrick Wilson). The only problem is that she has been out of touch with Brian for about 12 years and has never been to this house until somewhat later in the film. Am I missing something here?

The film itself is mildly interesting for its character study of four thirty somethings coming reluctantly to embrace adulthood. The main character Patti is hiding from life. She is a literary woman who has married a decidedly non-literary oaf who wears rings on his thumbs. Her husband never does anything to remind her of her love of letters. Her hibernation ends when she accidentally encounters her lost love in a restaurant.

The musical choices were strange in this film. I wanted to choke whoever inflicted their dreary selections on the audience. I suppose this is where some of the limited film budget was conserved.

Well, the former college lovers all reunite and since they are more mature and even sober; the relationships may last. I could at least stand to watch this film entirely. One of Edward Burn's other films 'The Groomsmen' was so awful I couldn't stand more than 20 minutes.

World Premier at the Tribecca Film Festival 4/30

[mariv913 · 8/10 · 30 April 2007]

I saw the movie tonight at the Tribeca Film Festival. It was the world premier of the movie and the entire cast and crew was present. Ed Burns held a question/answer session after the film. If you like his other work you should enjoy this film which takes place in NYC and the Hamptons. The story follows the lives of old college friends who meet up when they are in their early 30s.The 4 main characters used to be lovers, but those relationships ended back when college did. I would place it under the romantic comedy category. A friend who attended the premier with me commented that she felt the movie was made in a very 'woody Allen'style. Enjoyable.

Edward Burns must have lost a bet

[MBunge · 4/10 · 14 June 2011]

This film has to be the result of a drunken wager. One of Edward Burns' running buddies must have bet him a case of scotch or something that he couldn't make a movie where the main character was a woman. So, Burns set out to write and direct Purple Violets, where the main character is a woman…and lost the bet. That's because all this thing is good for is demonstrating in painful detail that Edward Burns cannot make a movie where the main character is a woman. You won't find too many better examples than this of a talented storyteller struggling against the very story he's trying to tell.

Patti Petalson (Selma Blair) used to be a writer. She even got a thinly veiled account of her college years published, but that was many years ago. Now she works as a realtor for a condescending ass of a boss, is married to a pudgy dick with an English accent and hasn't written a word in forever. Then one night, while having dinner with her caustic girlfriend Kate (Debra Messing), Patti has a chance encounter with Brian Callahan (Patrick Wilson). He's the old boyfriend she dumped back in college who went on to become a famous crime novelist and just published his first attempt at serious literature to horrible reviews. Brian still hangs out with Michael Murphy (Edward Burns), the wiseass who dated Kate in college until he broke her heart. Brian also has an intolerable bitch of a girlfriend.

Do I actually need to explain to you where the plot goes from here? Seriously? Can I not just tell you that this is Burns' feeble attempt at an utterly unsurprising romantic comedy and leave it at that?

What I do want to make clear is that this is NOT an ensemble movie. Purple Violets is about Patti Petalson. She's the main character and there's no doubt about that. However, within the first 15 minutes of the film it is stunningly obvious that Burns is not only much more interested in the secondary characters of Brian and Murphy, he doesn't know what to really do with Patti and doesn't know that he doesn't know what to do with Patti. There are far more scenes between Brian and Murphy than there are between Patti and Kate, with Kate reduced to even more of two-dimensional bitch than Brian's intolerable bitch of a girlfriend. Heck, I'd bet there are more scenes between Brian and Murphy than between Brian and Patti and more scenes of Patti and Murphy than Patti and Kate. And whenever Burns writes a scene of Patti by herself, she's never doing anything. She's standing and moping or she's walking and moping or she's looking out the window and moping. And for those few scenes of Patti and Kate together, can you guess what they do? That's right, they talk almost exclusively about Brian and Murphy, with Patti even taking Murphy's side and defending a guy she hasn't seen in over a decade against the woman who's supposed to be her best friend.

Purple Violets is like something that would be dissected in a woman's studies program at an all-girls university as an example of false consciousness. Burns thinks he's making a movie about a woman and her struggles in life, but he's not. He's really making a movie about a couple of guys. That's where all of his attention is. That's where all of his effort is. That's undeniably the movie he wants to make. He just doesn't realize it.

In addition to being awesomely misdirected, this film isn't very well done in general. The best stuff is (surprise!) the relationship between Brian and Murphy. But Patti and the other female characters are so slackly written that it seeps into everything else. I mean, Burns actually has someone say out loud "My heart is breaking". It's all either shallow or truncated or both.

Purple Violets is terrible. I hope Burns didn't skimp when he bought that other guy the case of scotch or whatever he owed him.

sweet and honest

[jentri76 · 24 May 2009]

I've been an Ed Burns fan for many years. I think the fact that he is an actor, writer and director shows over and over again in the work he produces. He's not a big, flashy kind of performer that writes for the masses, but rather an unconventional, understated artist who works from the heart. That is both rare and admirable.

I thought the film had a certain sweetness and raw humor about it. Burns has a gift for finding the honest moments in life & interjecting elements of those into character driven pieces, where he gives them a new home on screen. Very naturalistic & effective approach to dialog too, as demonstrated in this film. Blair particularly shines.

Fans of Burns' work will enjoy it, even though its not his most sharply-worded work

[inkblot11 · 8/10 · 14 April 2011]

Patti (Selma Blair) and her best friend, Kate (Debra Messing) are meeting for dinner at a Manhattan restaurant. Patti is an aspiring writer who has detoured into selling real estate, to pay the bills, and is married to a smug chef while Kate, a lovely schoolteacher, is still single. Lo and behold, the two women are amazed to see a pair of their ex-flames having dinner at a table not far away. Brian (Patrick Wilson), who was once very much in love with Patti, is now a very successful detective novelist who yearns to break free from the genre. Michael, Kate's past boyfriend, is, at present, a lucrative lawyer, since he sobered up and got serious. Naturally, the chance meeting is a heart stirrer. Patti's marriage is on the rocks and her still-strong attraction to Brian is real. Opposingly, Kate wants nothing to do with Michael, given his past infidelity, but it soon becomes apparent that the lawyer is ready to court her again. Will there be a second chance at love for either of these couples? First, let me state that I am a huge fan of Burns, who is first rate as a writer/director. His past work, including Brothers McMullen, She's the One, No Looking Back and, especially, the hard-hitting Sidewalks of New York, are exemplary examples of independent successes. However, this one is not quite on their level, which doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. It is. To begin, the four principal actors, Blair, Wilson, Messing, and Burns himself, are all attractive, capable thespians. They are a pleasure to watch. The supporting cast, which is includes the razor-tongued Dennis Farina, is also fine. The Manhattan setting, Burn's obvious home turf favorite, is nicely shown while the costumes, photography, and Burns' skilled direction are pluses, too. Most of all, the script, which is uneven, has some good messages about creativity and commercial success, which sometimes do not go hand in hand. Some of the film's best moments come from Wilson, at his book signings, who shows exasperation at some of his one-dimensional fans. No, its not "Misery" but the philosophy presented is the same. In short, if you like romantic comedy and Burns' smooth style, grab this one off the shelf, too.

Pretentious Drivel

[tday · 3/10 · 3 February 2013]

I know Ed Burns. He writes movies about Irish American families in New York and they have heart and a lot of soul. And truth, honesty. Purple Violets isn't one of those movies.

I loved Selma Blair and Patrick Wilson. They shined ... Debra Messing gave an embarrassing performance. Her take on her character was a caricature of it and she apparently approached it like a sitcom, as opposed to an independent film. Luckily, she's done other vehicles since.

The story was lacking in purpose and commitment. Wishy-washy, should I write, shouldn't I? The characters ... well honestly, other than Patti and Brian, I didn't really care about them. And I didn't really care that much about Patti and Brian, either. It was not the Ed Burns I've come to love, with his handsome, crooked grin, and vulnerable, yet street-smart sensibilities.

They call Ed Burns the "Irish Woody Allen." Sometimes I think when Ed Burns tries too hard to BE Woody Allen, he falls way short. Ed writes great stories about very close friends and family and the intricacies of their relationships and situations, but things we all go through. He pulls out the microscope, so to speak. You KNOW these people. And while being very funny and sarcastic, he's sensitive and honest.

What he tried here was far too broad. Out of the "family" context, his characters were too normal and not nearly as neurotic as they could/should be. When you write about people who are not with each other on a daily basis, you have to give them a reason to be together. He should just be himself, write what he knows best: deeply flawed, working-class, Irish American New York families and the people who touch their lives. That's when he shines, that's when he grabs your heart.

A near miss

[dmasursky · 5/10 · 22 November 2010]

I wanted to like this movie, I really did, but it didn't manage to be likable in a sustained way. There were some funny and interesting moments, but overall it was not a great film. Every character was so exaggerated - Elizabeth Resaser and Donal Logue were so unpleasant, how could their uber-sweet partners have ever found them appealing? Especially we're supposed to believe that Selma Blair has been married to this schmuck for 7 years? How did she last 7 minutes? And how could Patrick Wilson have spent 6 months with the shrill and obnoxious Bernadette? And Ed Burns character was also ridiculous - how could this man, who refers to himself in the third person as "The Murph," possibly be a successful literary lawyer? I'm not a fan of Selma Blair - I've always thought she was quite wooden and charmless, but she actually did a passable job in this role. But the whole movie was so stuffed with clichés and caricatures, it's just not worth sitting through for the few winning moments. Disappointing, because it had a promising premise. I expect more from Ed Burns.

They Should Have Called it "Purple Prose"

[michael-cohn8 · 1/10 · 26 April 2007]

Just saw this movie last night at the Tribeca Film Festival in conjunction with an unrelated product demo by a tech company. Even though it was the first time the movie had ever been screened in 35 millimeters, director Ed Burns was a no-show, though he was supposed to introduce it. None of the performers showed up either. A couple of producers did introduce the flick. They had formed a new company, probably because whichever movie studio initially green-lighted the project must have realized what a mess they had on their hands.

The story made no sense, the script was full of clichés, the characters were uniformly obnoxious, and many of the performers overacted atrociously. Definitely the worst movie I've seen all year.

It opens with a long ponderous shot of Selma Blair wandering out to the beach, watching the waves crashing while sappy music plays. You know then you're in for a dreadful experience. The only good thing was the New York locations. Much of it was filmed in Tribeca, obviously with an eye toward getting it in the festival, no matter how bad it turned out.

All the characters are unlikable. They all live in luxurious New York apartments and carp about how unhappy they are. One of them is an English chef who runs a restaurant, but you never see him cooking except in his apartment kitchen while he torments his wife with sarcastic comments. She later catches him jerking off to Internet porn. I got the feeling he was based on a real chef whom Ed Burns wanted to settle a score with.

Debra Messing has had a romantic relationship with Ed Burns before the movie opens. She spots him sitting in a restaurant while she's lunching with a friend and she tells her about their unhappy past. The problem is that she also briefly dated another Ed Burns character in Will & Grace. So I was sitting there during scenes like this hoping Will or Jack or Karen would come in and liven things up.

Several of the characters like Patrick Wilson's and Selma Blair's are supposed to be bestselling authors, but they don't talk at all like writers. Ed Burns' character is a lawyer who represents authors, but he doesn't read their books, which makes you wonder how he could be so successful if he doesn't take any real interest in his clients' work.

The Patrick Wilson character is shown in a couple of scenes at a book signing in a store that looks like a Barnes & Noble. But it's like no book signing you've ever seen. He goes in, gets introduced, sits down at the table, and doesn't read a single word from the book he's supposedly promoting. In the first book signing, people line up with copies of his earlier novels, not the one he's there to promote. Being a total schmuck, he refuses to sign the other books, even though many of them look like mint copies his fans may have just picked up. What bookstore is going to allow an author to come in and refuse to sign copies of books that customers intend to purchase there?

Then near the end of the movie (warning: some spoilers coming up here), he has a new book out in which he has killed off his most famous character, a detective or policeman or something. Nevertheless, his fans have lined up around the block to get their books signed and they are begging him to bring the character back. Several of them are the same people he has mistreated in the previous scene. This time, he again gives them obnoxious answers, telling them the beloved character is dead and they should forget about him ever bringing him back (as if this never happened with Sherlock Holmes and countless other characters, or the idea of writing a prequel is out of the question).

Then Selma Blair shows up with a copy of his earlier book, the one he wrote that was supposed to have literary value and that none of his detective book fans wanted to buy earlier. So even though the store manager is begging him to stay and sign autographs for a crowd that's lined up around the block, he insists on taking a break after just a few minutes and walks away to have a private chat with Selma. He tells her he wants to break off their relationship and he writes a message essentially saying so in her book, which he signs with just the initial B, so he doesn't even give her a real autograph.

She opens the book later and for some inexplicable reason interprets his message as an invitation to come visit him at his beach house, which we have seen in the opening shots of the movie. In the final scene (again spoiler alert), she walks into his house and finds on his desk a copy of the manuscript with the same title as the movie, Purple Violets. She opens it to the first page and the opening sentence echoes the inscription in her book. So she seems to understand it to mean that his latest novel is all about her. She leaves the house, walks out to the beach, and he's sitting there, as if he has been waiting for her, knowing that she will somehow understand the message in her book, which to most people would seem to be that he's dumping her. But instead she comes over to him as some sappy rock song gets louder and louder on the soundtrack and sits down next to him on the beach. Then he embraces her in one of the most ridiculous happy endings I have seen in any movie.

I could go on and on about how truly bad this movie is, but mercifully I fell asleep during stretches of it as a result of the wine they were serving.

Self involved thirty somethings in relationships that defy interest or explanation.

[jodefien · 1/10 · 12 September 2008]

I kept expecting to care about the characters in this film at some point, but realized after 45 minutes that mostly I disliked each and every one of them. If this is an inside view of NY's thirty something elite I wonder why more buildings don't voluntarily fall on the city to rid it of it's self indulgent and invariably uninteresting population.

Of the four leads, Debra Messing was the only one to make the slightest sense and she was as two dimensional as a paper doll. Selma Balir did a credible job with her character, since the character seems to be as bored as she is boring. The men were all caricatures of various types, but none were in the slightest individuals to be sympathized with, and I can only hope that there were few who could relate to them in any way. I was bored. BORED! BORED! BORED! I recommend you look discreetly aside at the video store and opt for a documentary on paint drying. Or, if you are feeling particularly in need of self punishment. go to the kitchen and stick a fork in your eye.

Lose The Common Touch

[boblipton · 5/10 · 19 January 2024]

Old college friends meet a dozen years after college, amidst relationship breakups and artistic crises. Some, like Edward Burns, and successful agents and recovering drunks, anxious to get back with old lovers. Some, like Selma Blair, had early critical success and went nowhere, except into a marriage that has now grown stale. And some, like Patrick Wilson, have had great commercial success, but his relationship is breaking up even as his serious novel gets awful reviews, and even his ardent fans are uninterested.

Writer/Director Edward Burns' movie is about midlife crisis, even though his characters are in their early 30s. And as they wander from fabulous restaurants in fashionable districts of the city to amazing architectural palaces on the water out in the Hamptons, all of them suffering internal crises -- except for Burns, who never reads his clients' books and is making a lot of money -- leave me very bored. I'm not saying they aren't suffering. I'm saying it's a form of suffering that doesn't really touch a mass audience with real problems, like incurable addiction, death, and lack of money. We never see the brilliance, we just see the appearance of having been brilliance and prospered thereby. In our age of idiot influencers, it's not particularly convincing, nor sympathetic.

Beautiful camerawork of gorgeous landscapes and performers by William Rexer helps.

still love mcmullen

[tgreene73 · 2/10 · 19 February 2009]

I wanted to like this movie, but it just wasn't there-I am writing this review while attempting to watch it.The accents(Queens by Burns and the British accent by Donal) were embarrassing,and the acting was just bad all around I am all about putting friends in your movies but it just didn't work here, I was waiting for Dennis Farina to pull out a badge,love Selma Balir but she had little to work with here-it almost looked like the actors(Patrick Wilson,Donal Lague) were all there acting by themselves. Too many clichés everything from Burns eating pizza in Ny to his stint in AA. Mind you I might be slightly bitter that Burns has a full head of hair at 40, is married to the beautiful model and successfully got thrown out of Chaminade,but will be very happy when he writes another good movie but this wasn't it.

Burns obviously didn't know anything about real estate biz

[housearrestedever · 5/10 · 3 December 2021]

You have to know that a brokerage usually do not HIRE real estate agents but recruit them or to speak more correctly, to invite them to join the brokerage. They usually would recruit the licensed real estate agents who are reputably having lot of clients, the broker that recruit them only provide them with services, such as legal insurances against the possible lawsuits, seminars, printing machine, private offices for those agents who have the most business, or just provide an office space with phone extension, computer and Wi-Fi service. The broker would collect a certain percentage from every deal of the agents' commission. But what we saw in this movie is that the leading young woman was HIRED by a broker as an employee. The guy who harassed her was her Boss. What was even more ridiculous is that the boss let her handle a potential multi-million dollars client for years! Burns absolutely know jacks**t about the real estate business, so those related scenes simply became so ridiculous and very difficult to watch.

Another ridiculous thing Burns did was the writer/publisher/book selling/legal consul crap. It was of course so unreal too. By arranging two couple of love birds nested on these two false and laughable backbones was just so painful to watch on.

Good premise, strange casting & below par acting by the leads.

[dandan-dandan · 12 September 2009]

The truth is the movie has a mediocre plot, which means the movie could turn out either way, good or bad, and it all depends on the execution by the actors and directing. Personally, I am okay with the directing. It's somewhat realistic. However, I am really bored by the acting by the 2 leads. The supposed leads Blair and Wilson have almost zero chemistry, almost devoid of any honesty and feelings in their interactions. I am annoyed by the obvious 'acting" by Wilson, and the lack of energy and presence from both. It's totally unpersuasive that Blair's character could be a "talented, passionate and honest" writer. Neither the script nor the acting could convince us either way. What's really funny was the scene where Logue broke up with Blair. She was hardly really upset, but then the dialogue made it sound like she should have.

There are three really awesome actors in this movie, who saved the movie by keeping the audience from walking away midway. And that's Messing, Burns and Logue. Messing and Burns should have been the leads. They simply steal the show, especially Messing. The thing is she has presence, and lots of authenticity to her acting, that convinces you that she is the character, even though the plot makes her out to be an unlikely grumpy woman. Donal Logue did a fantastic job to show himself a talented actor in this movie, where he was cast a character much different than he was type-casted into before. Even his body language and postures adapted to a younger and more sophisticated New York resident with a foreign background. For a second there, I though this was a younger foreign actor. But the confidence and presence drew me to notice it was indeed Logue! Great job.

Yes, I must agree. There's a degree of trying too hard to be woody Allen in this movie, but lacked all the essence of acting. All I got to say is that if they redo this movie, and make Messing and Burns the lead, they may make triple the box office. Not for the names, but for the acting.

Patrick Wilson still hot!!

[gkeith_1 · 14 April 2009]

Oh, Patrick Wilson (Brian). I have seen him in Phantom of the Opera, Little Children, Evening and now Purple Violets. He is excellent. He was wasting his time with the "Ecstasy" woman in this one. I am glad he got rid of her. Patti is nicer, and more his cup of tea.......... Edward Burns (Murph) was comical, and his comeback from screwed-up alcoholic was redeeming when finally his ex-girlfriend (Kate) ended up (spoilers here) with him near the end of this movie. I am glad she made him wait, and kept him dangling on that string for so long.......... Patti's husband was a total moron, and such a liar when he was talking with Patti near the end -- and at the same time a slutty bimbo was waiting for him back in the bedroom. I mean, he was such a loser. She must have been better than the online porn, but maybe it was Brian's ex. Maybe she and Patti's husband deserved each other............ Kate was tough, and a good friend to Patti. All those years after college, you mean to tell me she had no relationships with anyone else after Murph? Score one for her -- making Murph take her to the best restaurant in NY.......... Finally, Patrick is a singer. He sang a little in Evening, and did a great job in Oklahoma (Youtube). I tell ya, this boy has a great future. He was very sexy in Evening, AND Phantom of the Opera, PLUS the scene in the laundry room with Kate Winslet (Little Children) was one for the memory books!!!!!!!!!

Finally, does every story have to make sense? People IRL don't always have cut-and-dried-endings to their stories. Some are ongoing. Besides, we know that Patrick will end up in yet another movie, always being that sexy sweetie-pie self. I know that this is not the typical story about football players, car chases and people trying to out-run the police. This is a quiet story that somehow blends thoughts and dreams of thirty-somethings, who knew each other once upon a time, and who now hope to continue with the threads that will lead into their futures. I watched this movie to the end, and for me that says it was good and enjoyable. 10/10.