Just You

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

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.

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.

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.

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.