User reviews

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

My two consistent complaints about Edward Burns films are floppy writing and painful acting.

Burns can be good on a shoestring budget; no mean feat. But he's also written plenty of dialogue and roles that sound like just that (made-up, versus real people talking). As a director, his films are dotted with underwhelming performances.

Purple Violets is long on iffy acting from well-known actors; scenes where they mix it up are a real slog. I suspect even Ed Burns would admit it's a bad sign when his acting outshines his cast's.

Did I buy Patrick Wilson as a pulpy-ish writer with literary ambitions? Not at all. He spun a writerly self-doubt into greying out his character.

The hard part is Wilson was much better than Selma Blair (especially), Elizabeth Reaser and Donal Logue. Burns certainly shares the blame: Reaser plays a headachey, shrieking caricature, Logue's chef is needlessly British...who can say why, given a small role/his spotty, vague accent.

Blair did so much puffy-eyed shrugging, hand-waving and fidgeting I wanted to stop some scenes for her. Her disdain for her husband (the one strong feeling she conveyed), disappears when it makes the least sense for the plot. Et tu, Ed?

Mostly, I just didn't believe these people. Even the great Dennis Farina is wasted as Blair's bullying, sexist boss...who, inexplicably,, doesn't fire her.

In a lesser crime (though, could the money have been better spent on more takes?), even the music was so abysmal and overwrought I craved silence.

Four stars largely for Burns's 'Murph,' some lovely Hamptons shots and a solid Debra Messing.

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 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.

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.