Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Micitype Pretty Good

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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.

jehaccess6 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.

mariv913 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.

michael-cohn8 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.