indeniukaskikas The film, as I see it, shows that Theo and Nat are stuck in the so-called erotic block. Clues are numerous, though rather understated. The title of the film is somewhat ironic, if not paradoxical. There is monogamy and monogamy. What Theo encounters in his tracking down of the exhibitionist blonde is the erotic side of that often humdrum institution called "marriage", or monogamy for that matter. In other words, Theo encounters what can happen to be the gateway to heaven on earth and can help monogamy become erotic and thus thriving (counterintuitive though this may seem culturally). An erotic couple may engage in role play thus allowing themselves to enter altered states of consciousness (for it's in the brain that eroticism burgeons, sex being merely a function) after which they happily return to "normal". Goes without saying, it shouldn't be taken for a recipe, i.e. success formula, which would be rather reductionist, for art is metaphor, first and foremost... The actor Chris Messina renders the anguish of the fellow about to enter what "only death should the couple part" in a beautifully nuanced way that testifies to the depth of his talent.

John C I agree with Hrunting that the idea floated in this movie - creating a business model where you're paid as a personal paparazzo could make for a interesting meditation on the need for attention, which could go either in a dramatic or satirical direction. However, this is not that movie. Instead, we have a soap opera with voyeurism and obsession as a plot device designed to drive the couple apart.I think the actors do a great deal nonetheless with the material, and portray their characters convincingly. The breakup scene is excruciating, because all she's asking for is a reason to stay with him and he can't articulate one. I didn't like his character or his decisions, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie or a bad performance; he was convincing enough in the role that he was believable.My biggest problem with it is that the whole concept wasn't plausible. Does anyone really think that in the internet age, with exhibitionists of all kinds online at any moment of every day, that a guy in his 30s in NYC would seriously find the private life of "subgirl" so compelling? Compelling enough to abandon his fiancée at the hospital? And even if such a guy existed, is it plausible to think any woman would get into a relationship with someone so sexually immature and emotionally backward? Not to mention getting engaged to him.I don't mind watching movies about dumb characters, but this movie treated me as if I was the dumb one.

rightwingisevil The guy in this movie is a guy actually good for nothing except shooting goofy photos for some goofy people. I've never thought this kinda guy could make a living and be somebody's lover or husband until I saw this movie. A guy who already set up the wedding date with this nice and talented girl (Quincy Jones Daughter, a Harvard graduate) but still got some doubt of his commitment and still got some goofy sex fantasies, fancy a slut who hired him to shoot her goofy and weird sexual behaviors and some of her unspeakable fantasies that arouse him to fall for her. This guy is such an unworthy person that disgusted me to the extreme when I watched it. The screenplay is very blend and lukewarm, using N.Y.C. as the usual background for those young people who got nothing but daydreams. Just make me wonder how long this guy's marriage could survive. The only good stuff in this movie is the beautiful songs his soon-wife-to-be sang, other than that, it's kinda hollow and pointless.

Red-125 Monogamy (2010) was co-written and directed by Dana Adam Shapiro. The basic concept of the film is interesting. A photographer--Theo, played by Chris Messina--moonlights as "Gumshoot." Gumshoot is hired by people to take candid shots of themselves. It's an interesting thought--what do we look like when we're being photographed, but we aren't posing.The problem begins when Theo starts to photograph a striking blonde woman with whose life he becomes obsessed. This obsession begins to control him and eventually begins to cause a split between Theo and his fiancé Nat (Rashida Jones). I can't identify with a guy who doesn't have all that much going for him, and yet puts a wonderful relationship in jeopardy in order to follow his obsession. Of course, that's the point of the movie--if the obsession made sense, it wouldn't really be an obsession. If you can see things from Theo's point of view, you'll enjoy the movie. If not, probably not.We saw this film, at the Rochester 360-365 Film Festival. (Dumb name, but good festival.) It will work better on a large screen than a small screen, because part of the enjoyment comes from seeing the Brooklyn and Manhattan locations. In my opinion, not a film worth seeking out, but probably worth a look, especially if you're from NYC.