source: Any Day Now

and I realise with that one summary, I may have alienated more conservative readers, but hey - you're already preaching to the converted. So, as an audience, do we really need to see that the mother is a hopeless case AFTER the custody decision has been awarded in her favour?! Does the kid have to die, as a result of the ruling? I realise this is how events MAY have transpired, but some judicious pacing could have been employed, in order that proceedings not feel quite so manipulative. I'm fully in favour of adoption to a loving home, no matter the sexuality of the prospective parents… I am… but it would be nice if the individual facts of the case were trusted to speak for themselves, instead of feeling like the undecided have to have their arm twisted behind their back before they can be counted upon to make the right call. A little more subtlety would have made the movie more effective to me, even if marginally less persuasive for those whose verdict is still in the balance. It's a shame, too, because the message is all in favour of a good cause, and Cumming's performance is masterful. It's a pity for the sake of organic storytelling in entertaining form, that those factors alone were not judged as compelling enough to be able to swing the vote.

This was an excellent movie, I was shocked at the end but then I wasn't surprised given that in the 70s everything wasn't in the favor of two gay men. I'm glad that that everyone who prevented Marco from going back to the two men, in the court system received a letter illustrating the outcome. There was a lot in this movie to like but the court scenario where Garett Dillahunt (Rudy's partner) stressed the obvious that nobody wanted Marco being a down syndrome child, and yet these two men loved him, and were his only safety net. I recommend this movie. Also some interesting actors show up too, many A listing Actors.

This has so much potential, but much in the same way as Sean Penn's "Into the Wild", it lays on so much sentimentality that it becomes risible (slow-mo turning heads to show pain, cheesy music when you're meant to feel sad, TERRIBLE OTT montage to show the progression of the relationship between the child and new parents). In the hands of a more experienced director, who would have allowed the powerful story to speak for itself, instead of piling on the amateur gimmicks, this would've been amazing. Instead, I'd say it's a bona-fide box of tissues, ice-cream schmaltz-fest to be tolerated by only the most "sex-in-the-city" of audiences.

I watched the movie because I admire the work of Alan Cumming, and yes, he was (as always) brilliant as the singer---think Garbo doing Camille but with a five o'clock shadow. He is so completely lovable from moment one that his relationship with the lawyer is 100% believable. What bothers me about the film is not anything contained within the film. I loved that it did not have the ending that Hollywood has lead us to expect such films to have. I loved that it was realistic. I loved that it celebrated love. What I am curious about is why is this a "little" film? Given the timeliness of its subject matter, I would have expected it to receive more mainstream attention. Is mainstream American film criticism still uneasy at the thought of a gay couple raising a kid? Why don't we have any openly gay leading actors in the U.S.? What is wrong with our country? Once upon a time, back in the 70s when I was growing up, everyone was "bi", regardless of who you slept with. How did we end up going back in time?

This film is about a gay couple who fights the legal system to get custody of a mentally handicapped child in the USA in 1970's. "Any Day Now" tells a touching story about how two gay men fall in love with each other, and their love extends to a mentally retarded child who is left alone because his mother is sentenced to prison for drug related offence. The film couple becomes loving and caring parents to an underprivileged child, despite the discrimination of the conservative society. This selfless and unconditional love is quite touching in itself, but what is more touching is their solid determination to fight against systematic discrimination and injustice. I am glad that this film is made, so that this story, together with their activist spirit, reaches a wider audience. Hopefully, someone somewhere is inspired by this couple, and will stand up against injustice like they did.

I would start by saying that Alan Cumming did an excellent job in depicting the character "Rudy" in the movie . The story line was warm and new but the only downside to the movie is that the movie is set in the late 70s but dressing and art work suggest otherwise. Some characters in the movie were well defined but some were quite vague.The camera work was OK, nothing too special.The movie completely deserves a better rating than it has right now. Overall a very entertaining and touching movie. I would not regret watching the movie twice. PS: Make sure you carry a tissue paper with you. You might drop a tear or two while watching the movie.

If I cared about my reviewer ranking (I don't), I'd never review a movie like Any Day Now. So many people love it so adamantly that they can't help attacking anybody who doesn't. Although he plays an interesting character, Alan Cumming's performance is so over-the-top that he is never believable; and since the whole movie hangs on his performance, the whole movie is a failure. I never for one second forgot that I was watching Alan Cumming act, never for one second related to Rudy Donatello as a real person or cared about what he cared about. In that regard, Garret Dillahunt's Paul was much better. I did believe in and care about him, but it wasn't enough. I never for one second even believed Rudy was gay (even though Cumming is) or that he cared a bean about Marco or Paul or anybody else but his own obnoxious drama-queen self. Marco was a prop to him, not a person; Marco was just a pawn in Rudy's egomaniacal drive to right society's injustice against himself. Willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, and I do it all the time when watching movies; but trying to FORCE myself to believe something when everything in me constantly screams "Fake!" is more than I demand of myself. The atrocious wigs that sat atop Cumming's and Dillahunt's heads throughout the movie, and Cumming's shrill and embarrassingly bad New York accent, were persistent and unnecessary distractions that did not help the movie's credibility. Movies are for entertainment; if they don't entertain, they fail. The failure is theirs, not mine. I agree completely with a review on another site that starts "The message is admirable, but the vehicle is a clunker." The legal rejection of gays as adoptive parents is an indefensible injustice that must and will be corrected. This movie not only completely fails to advance that cause, but it sets that cause back. That's inexcusable. Gay couples deserve better than this movie. It makes a strong case for NOT letting gays adopt, because the gay in this case is a narcissistic, hysterical, totally self-absorbed nut like Rudy Donatello, unfit to adopt ANY child, especially one like Marco who needs constant, self-sacrificing attention. Rudy's total unfitness to adopt a child has nothing to do with his being gay; it has to do with his unstable, totally self-centered personality. Near the movie's end - just in case we'd somehow missed the point that the tragedy was about HIM, not about Marco - Rudy grinds out a truly cringe-inducing rendition of Bob Dylan's hymn-like "I Shall Be Released", tears and sweat streaming down his face. His rampant, crippling narcissism is appalling. Saying that Any Day Now is based on "a true story" is no excuse. The writer-director Travis Fine chose what to include and leave out, what to emphasize and tone down. The movie is his responsibility; he was not forced by "facts" to make it as he did. If Fine's intention was to advance the cause of gay adoption, his hero should have been fit to parent a disabled child, so that the law's rejection of him could be seen as truly biased and unjust. Rudy - THIS Rudy - was NOT fit to parent such a child, or any child. I am proudly and militantly gay, but I kept hoping for Marco's sake that the courts would not give Rudy custody of him. I doubt that's the point Fine intended to make when he wrote and directed this movie, but it's the point he did make. Thank God the future of gay rights doesn't depend on this movie, or we'd all be back in the closet with the door locked and our guns loaded.

Travis Fine's remarkable film "Any Day Now" deals with the very thorny issue of gay parenting or more specifically, gay adoption. Alan Cumming, (superb), is the drag artist who feels responsible for the mentally handicapped child next door, (a terrific Issac Leyva), after his mother is picked up by the vice squad and who decides to do something about it by legally adopting the child himself with the help of his new lover who just happens to be a lawyer, (a very good Garret Dillahunt). It's the kind of topic the movies tends to shy away from and it has all the potential for mawkishness but Fine manages to steer clear of sentimentality; the result is both intelligent and very moving, yet not without a degree of humour. Of course, it also deals with issues that many will find grim and distressing and it proves to be a challenging watch. This is one gay-themed film that lays it very much on the line and is all the more powerful for it. In an age when so many polemical films are cut and dried and conventionally on the side of the angels here is one that is content to bleed like an open wound. You won't forget it in a hurry.

Love and compassion for a mistreated young boy, Marco, suffering from Down syndrome, is the basis of "Any Day Now", a film with its heart in the right place. The subject matter is not exactly suitable for a studio production because it has the added peculiarity that the people looking to do the right thing are a gay couple who must put up with prejudice and ignorance from the legal system in the country. The film directed by Travis Fine, who co-wrote the screenplay with George Arthur Bloom, offers a glimpse at a thorny issue in our society. Is it terribly wrong that two gay men, willing to raise Marco as their son, be denied custody just on the basis of their life style,and not on the love in their hearts? It seems unfair toward a boy who has been totally neglected by a drug addicted mother who brings men into her cramped apartment, instead of letting Marco be with Rudy and Paul, who are willing to do for him what a mother from hell will not do. Obviously, the film was a vehicle for Alan Cumming, a talented actor who surprises with his take on Rudy. Mr. Cumming has a chance to sing in the film with his unique style and elegant delivery. Garrett Dillahante does not fare as well, but his role is not the flashy One.The best sequences in the movie are the ones in which a courtroom is involved. Frances Fisher, Gregg Henry, Chris Mulkey, and Don Franklin are seen in supporting roles.