Purple Violets
Purple Violets
NR | 30 April 2007 (USA)
Purple Violets Trailers

Patti Petalson is a promising writer, but her marriage and conventional job keep her from her dream. She longs to return to her writing, especially after running into her first love Brian Callahan, a successful crime novelist. Kate is Patti's best friend since college; she's a tough-talking schoolteacher who plays therapist to all Patti's problems, while she's got a few of her own.

Reviews
Phonearl

Good start, but then it gets ruined

... View More
SparkMore

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

... View More
CrawlerChunky

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

... View More
ChicDragon

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

... View More
MBunge

This film has to be the result of a drunken wager. One of Edward Burns' running buddies must have bet him a case of scotch or something that he couldn't make a movie where the main character was a woman. So, Burns set out to write and direct Purple Violets, where the main character is a woman…and lost the bet. That's because all this thing is good for is demonstrating in painful detail that Edward Burns cannot make a movie where the main character is a woman. You won't find too many better examples than this of a talented storyteller struggling against the very story he's trying to tell.Patti Petalson (Selma Blair) used to be a writer. She even got a thinly veiled account of her college years published, but that was many years ago. Now she works as a realtor for a condescending ass of a boss, is married to a pudgy dick with an English accent and hasn't written a word in forever. Then one night, while having dinner with her caustic girlfriend Kate (Debra Messing), Patti has a chance encounter with Brian Callahan (Patrick Wilson). He's the old boyfriend she dumped back in college who went on to become a famous crime novelist and just published his first attempt at serious literature to horrible reviews. Brian still hangs out with Michael Murphy (Edward Burns), the wiseass who dated Kate in college until he broke her heart. Brian also has an intolerable bitch of a girlfriend.Do I actually need to explain to you where the plot goes from here? Seriously? Can I not just tell you that this is Burns' feeble attempt at an utterly unsurprising romantic comedy and leave it at that?What I do want to make clear is that this is NOT an ensemble movie. Purple Violets is about Patti Petalson. She's the main character and there's no doubt about that. However, within the first 15 minutes of the film it is stunningly obvious that Burns is not only much more interested in the secondary characters of Brian and Murphy, he doesn't know what to really do with Patti and doesn't know that he doesn't know what to do with Patti. There are far more scenes between Brian and Murphy than there are between Patti and Kate, with Kate reduced to even more of two-dimensional bitch than Brian's intolerable bitch of a girlfriend. Heck, I'd bet there are more scenes between Brian and Murphy than between Brian and Patti and more scenes of Patti and Murphy than Patti and Kate. And whenever Burns writes a scene of Patti by herself, she's never doing anything. She's standing and moping or she's walking and moping or she's looking out the window and moping. And for those few scenes of Patti and Kate together, can you guess what they do? That's right, they talk almost exclusively about Brian and Murphy, with Patti even taking Murphy's side and defending a guy she hasn't seen in over a decade against the woman who's supposed to be her best friend.Purple Violets is like something that would be dissected in a woman's studies program at an all-girls university as an example of false consciousness. Burns thinks he's making a movie about a woman and her struggles in life, but he's not. He's really making a movie about a couple of guys. That's where all of his attention is. That's where all of his effort is. That's undeniably the movie he wants to make. He just doesn't realize it. In addition to being awesomely misdirected, this film isn't very well done in general. The best stuff is (surprise!) the relationship between Brian and Murphy. But Patti and the other female characters are so slackly written that it seeps into everything else. I mean, Burns actually has someone say out loud "My heart is breaking". It's all either shallow or truncated or both.Purple Violets is terrible. I hope Burns didn't skimp when he bought that other guy the case of scotch or whatever he owed him.

... View More
Amy Adler

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.

... View More
dandan-dandan

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.

... View More
tgreene73

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.

... View More