Do You Take This Man

The plot is a bit of a bore but the message this movie offers is the reason for my high score.

And that message is - when it comes to marriage each partner should give 60%. Here we have two guys deeply in love with each other but each still wants it his way! That won't work and never will.

The script is fine and each actor competent in their role. Not each as believable as the other but the foundation of this film is it's message to the viewer.

As a playwright and screen writer, intelligent dialog is my main goal. This script has it. Congratulations Mr. Tunick. You put me to shame.

The cast was very good, with Mackenzie Astin and Alona Tal standing out. But it's Steven's (Sam Anderson) speech at the dinner table which steals the show.

Great film. Thanks to all involved.

Do You Take This Man (2016) was written and directed by Joshua Tunick.

This movie is a romantic comedy, starring Anthony Rapp as Daniel, a 40-year-old man, and Jonathan Bennett as Christopher, a 30-something man, who is going to marry Daniel the next day. As in almost all movies about weddings, things go wrong at the last minute. Some people who should be there aren't, and some people arrive unexpectedly.

And, of course, there's a major, core problem that has to be overcome. (Actually, it could have been overcome easily, but then there'd be no crisis. Crisis is very important in a movie like this.)

The lead actors are talented, the supporting cast of actors all do brilliant work, and there are plenty of laughs. (Predictable laughs, but that's OK.) There's also a fair amount of pscyhobabble, but maybe people really do talk and think that way in the Los Angeles/Hollywood setting.

This is the type of film that's worth seeing if you are already at a festival, and have all-event tickets. I wouldn't seek it out, but I wouldn't avoid it either. IMDb isn't accepting votes for this movie yet. If I could vote, I'd give it a 7.

We saw this film at the excellent Dryden Theatre at the George Eastman Museum. It will work very well on the small screen. Do You Take This Man was shown as part of the outstanding ImageOut Rochester LGBT Film Festival. The film was one of 22 movies that had either their New York State premiere or their East Coast premiere at ImageOut. My compliments to the ImageOut Programming Committee for bringing so many new films to Rochester.

The primary flaw with this movie is that there is no character development of the two leads. We don't know much about them on the eve of their planned wedding, yet we are expected to cry a river when trouble in paradise arises. Acting was alright. The stand out was the actor playing Jason. He seemed like the only polished pro on the set. The most memorable part of the script was what the dad had to say about his son's gayness. His thoughts were logical, rational and caring....and not a perspective that is typically heard. Pretty low on production values as it was shot mostly in one interior location, a house in LA. In the end, the director should have kept Jason, fired the rest and searched for a better script with better character development before expecting the audience to care about two guys getting married.

I am not going to start with any comment on the double entendre of the title. That is something that more involves the end... A pleasant, very decent movie with a professional cast. I didn't quite believe that these two could be a real couple, or that they would live in such a - somewhat - prosperous ambience with no visible means of support. Their economic background should have been written into the dialogue, somehow. Daniel confides to his friend that he has bought his betrothed a $300.00 pen in a tone suggesting that that is a lot of money to him. However, they are living in a large house in a neighborhood walking distance from the Hollywood sign... And we don't get any idea as to how Daniel got this money; his love interest Christopher is apparently an artist (and how many unknown artists ever make any real money?). The only person who ever bought a quantity of Christopher's art was Daniel. We don't even see any of his art, so either the budget didn't allow for licensing of any actual artist's work, or this work of ersatz Cinéma Vérité lacked a props master with such foresight. A long-lost friend reappears and he doesn't show her any of his life's work: His art...? The form is far greater here than the substance. The acting is near perfectly adequate. The production values are exceptionally adequate - but not notable. I am not saying that the narrative is shallow, but if this was a day at the beach you would barely get your knees wet. There was not any single line that was memorable, no scintillating dialogue. No real contour of emotional or erotic glamour. The scriptwriter may have captured verbal realism, but if people want that they can hear it on a bus or at a Burger King. It offers self-help, but in a very contradictory form. Who needs to hear the ancient cliché that "opposites really do attract". One minute Christopher realizes that he needs to deal with his past, and the next he is dismissing the past offhand. What does acknowledging and dealing with your past actually mean in practical terms? : Rehashed pop psychology. It became tedious at about half way for me. There was no real tension. A friend cancels, and that tension could have been easily undone by Daniel taking a few deep breaths. If the wedding had been a huge financial investment then it would have been different, but that was not indicated in any of the dialogue... Was this worth making? Yes. Is it worth seeing? Yes, but not an imperative. If you like predictability you'll like this movie. You don't have to wait until the end to get the pay off - you get it right at the first encounter. Just the way you want it.