Purple Violets

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.