Purple Violets (2007)

Purple Violets (2007)

Annette ArnoldMax BakerSelma BlairJames Biberi
Edward Burns


Purple Violets (2007) is a English movie. Edward Burns has directed this movie. Annette Arnold,Max Baker,Selma Blair,James Biberi are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2007. Purple Violets (2007) is considered one of the best Comedy,Drama,Romance movie in India and around the world.

In New York City, thirty-three year old Patti Petalson is unhappy with her life. Her passion is literature, she having published one book of short stories ten years ago, but not having written anything since. Instead to earn a living, she sells real estate, a job and for a boss she hates. And although unspoken, she hates her husband, self-absorbed restaurateur Chazz Coleman, who doesn't listen to her and does whatever he wants regardless of her. While out for dinner, Patti and her BFF, schoolteacher Kate Scott, run into Brian Callahan and Michael Murphy, who were once Patti and Kate's respective boyfriends, the four who used to do everything together while they were in college, with both relationships ending twelve years ago as they were graduating. Kate has never forgiven self-described lowbrow Murph, now a successful lawyer despite his lack of academic smarts, for what she believed was a sexual indiscretion, while Murph outwardly just wants the opportunity to apologize. However, ...


Purple Violets (2007) Reviews

  • Purple Violets Is A Nice Addition to the Burns Collection


    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.

  • A fun time in New York


    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.

  • Burns excels again!


    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

  • If you like Edward Burns films, you will like this.


    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.

  • Edward Burns must have lost a bet


    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.


Hot Search