Purple Violets

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.