IMDb user comments for
Purple Violets (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Index

5 comments in total

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
A fun time in New York, 8 May 2007
Author: lmayper from Connecticut

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Purple Violets Is A Nice Addition to the Burns Collection, 21 November 2007

Author: jimgleeson-1 from United States

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.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
World Premier at the Tribecca Film Festival 4/30, 30 April 2007

Author: mariv913 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
If you like Edward Burns films, you will like this., 30 January 2008

Author: kirkus910

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.

---

4 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
They Should Have Called it "Purple Prose", 26 April 2007

Author: michael-cohn8 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

---

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history