I Want to Get Married (2011) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Couldn't bring myself to watch it....
Daniel Stevens24 January 2012
... after seeing what Matthew Montgomery does with his face the first five minutes of the movie.

I understand that he's not the greatest actor in the world and in his other movies he basically plays the same role over and over again (and thank god his other roles are pretty easy/one-dimensional/probably close to his normal behavior and don't need a lot of acting skills) but in this movie he really needed to "play a character".

His "acting like a nerd" consists of permanently flexing/releasing his lips and mouth which only makes him look mentally challenged and not nerdy at all... Like he has some kind of neurological disease which manifests in very obvious facial tics.

Furthermore he seems to think that part of "playing a nerd" is to mumble everything with a comic character-voice. He sounds like a smart-phone app where a gerbil repeats everything you say.

God awful...well not movie but lead "actor" who prevented me from seeing the movie...

I'm really sorry if that sounds harsh. But at least in his other movies (and in gay themed movies you don't have a lot of choice and will most likely watch anything because they are rare) I could overlook his "acting" and concentrate on the story. It was awful but it didn't bother me that much. But in this one his "acting" is so bad, ridiculous and over the top that even I couldn't fade him out and give the story a chance...
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't Let The Cute DVD Cover Suck You In....
arizona-philm-phan28 December 2011
....Cause this just ain't what you think it's gonna be.

So, let me be honest with you right up front here. I have NEVER been a great fan of Matthew Montgomery. And despite 15 film roles, for me he has never improved past the point of being an "average" actor. That, and his appearance, as much as anything. There has always been something a little bit "Ratso Rizzo" (for want of a kinder description) about his facial characteristics. So there....now you know how shallow I am.

At last, let's briefly get to the movie, itself (which I tried to watch twice before coming here). ...And by the way, it is a film story of several subplots; in no way does it particularly concentrate on Matthew's character and his idiotic attempts to land the cute man of the cover. Playing an extremely unattractive Super-Geek, the best that Montgomery can bring to the role is a clinching...compressing...contortion of his lips and mouth (and, of course, the supposed-to-be nerdish, black frame glasses). The aforementioned mouth exercising QUICKLY gets very old....while at the same time making it quite difficult to understand our lead's utterances. Worse, this is compounded by one of the most terribly recorded soundtracks I have heard in years. I cannot say enough bad about the original sound-man's work on this film....BUT, Breaking Glass features should be especially ashamed to have their name attached to such a poor sound release.

Finally, it may interest you that, out of the film's near 120 minute running time, Matthew and his bride-to-be (or is it the other way around) are TOGETHER for no more than an amazing 20 minutes of screen time. Leaves a lot to be gotten done in those oh-so-interesting subplots.

My very best advice for you: SAVE YOUR MONEY.

14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ban Matthew Montgomery
sandover7 August 2013
I would like to give Matthew Montgomery a prize. In fact I would like to give him a prize every other day from Oklahoma to Tokyo, from the Streetfighters Weekly Achievement Award to the Crochet/Lacrosse Crossover Lambda Community Person of the Year Award to the Antarctica Board of Film Critics Lifetime Achievement Award! Or whatever. So having to fly every other day in order to receive this fabulous flow of awards he would NEVER EVER appear on screen or stage or wherever again, and we would be relieved from the anxiety of witnessing his retarded acting chopsticks the way they flood and insult the screen from the first minute he appears, as if vomiting his facial expressions all over the place. An unbelievably moronic display of conceit, watch it and get scarred from the badness. At least I am sure after this, I would never see a film that has his name on it; poor thing, he may even think his acting may be a concentration of - even Jerry Lewis! - camp, but the sad fact is he is only eligible for a concentration camp. Award, that is.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Big Disappointment
jchudson-9305225 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike the other reviews, I'm not going to put all the blame for this train wreck on Matthew Montgomery (who I put in that catergory of "you know what your going to get" out of his performance for the most part). Someone (Director etc.) thought all these whacky facial and body expressions described a "nerd" and it missed by a mile! While most indie films suffer from scripts that could have been better, direction that could have been better and probably budgets that would all for better sets/locations and more takes. The best part of this movie for me was the retro furniture of Paul the nerd.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad, Stinking Bad
JamesInSanDiego18 February 2017
I stopped halfway through the movie because I honestly couldn't watch any more of this dreadfully acted movie with terrible cinematography and a horrible attempt at slapstick humor. I have never written a review here but the movie was so bad that I created an account on IMDb and started writing.

Matthew Montgomery, if it is possible, is getting worse as an actor. I didn't read the credits before the movie started or I wouldn't have watched the movie. He is a geek trying to play a geek and missing the mark. He needs to retired soon.

The camera was either too close to the actors or it moved before the actors started moving or it was out of focus or... It bounced around in a bad way to the point of being distracting.

Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin and Dick Van Dike are rolling in their graves at the poor attempt at slapstick humor. Oops, Van Dike is still alive, lol. There was so much of it that you could easily predict what was going to happen.

Take my advice and find another movie to watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What the?
Irishreviewer21 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard Matthew Montgomery took part in this film, I thought 'I have to see this movie!'. I've seen his movie 'Redwoods' so I was really looking forward to seeing him in this film. The DVD cover really stood out well!

However as the movie went on, I was really disappointed in his Character role. His facial expressions really confused me and he was also mumbling a lot! But then at his Characters wedding day, he looked blank so why was he desperate after all to even get married? What also made me confused was when Jim gave him a hug or kissed him, he was always squirming like was he rushing to get to the door or were some of the kissing/hugging scenes even properly planned out?

Seriously I think this movie did my head in!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Please give this movie a chance!
Brad Clarke1 October 2012
this movie isn't about a gay man who goes on a string of dates because he wants to have a frivolous marriage to some guy.... And the main character is played as a genuine nerd who we all meet and know in real life. This seems to be some of the issues people tend to have about this film, some of whom have not even seen it!

Paul is a gay man who lives in the real world, he isn't picture perfect as far as the gay stereotypes go ( though he is really handsome!) and he doesn't have strings of unknown sex encounters and he doesn't do drugs and go clubbing as many other gay stereotypes insist we all do all the time, he is a man who is looking for love.

This film and funny and realistic with a group of friends who some have and others only wish they had which make the film thoroughly enjoying. The chemistry between the characters of Paul and Jim is engaging and also refreshing to have a couple of regular men who are looking for everyday, real, fantastic love ( if that happens or not you will have to watch the film ).

at the end of the day this film isn't about a guy who wants to get married just for getting married sake, he wants to get married in a world filled with governments and family who may be against him. Give is a shot, laugh at the funnies and take in the very relevant message that this film perfectly delivers.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hapless leading man tanks so-so comedy
Johnboy-728 August 2016
First the good news: This period comedy set around the time of the passage of the anti-gay Prop 8 legislation has a largely fine ensemble of actors, especially the always interesting "Shortbus" veteran Peter Stickles, but they're saddled with a meandering script that, at just under two hours, is easily 30-45 minutes too long.

Far more damaging is the casting of Matthew Montgomery in the leading comic role of a hapless nerd. I've never understood how this low-energy, charisma-free actor keeps getting work in gay indies, and here it's equally obvious that he couldn't find the joke in a scene if his life depended on it. He's the character we're supposed to be pulling for, yet Montgomery's clumsy, clueless performance is an unfunny disaster that renders the main love story nonsensical. Why do so many interesting, engaging, funny people in this movie like this guy who just sucks the joy out of a scene every time he enters it? It's a puzzlement. I'm going to be giving a pass to any future Montgomery vehicles, that's for sure.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews