Purple Violets (2007)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Really Surprised!

hyped garbage

Highly Overrated But Still Good

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.

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.

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.