Paul Creeden I have to wonder what they were thinking? Another story of mental illness in post-scientific and religious America. But this isn't some cheesy little indie. James Franco, perhaps the king of the hipster closet cases, colludes with Zachary Quinto, an out gay icon, to further blur the lines between heterosexual and homosexual identities. Let's confuse the kids some more.Gay marriage as the focal point of all gay activism in the past two decades was bad enough. Gays having the right to kill other human beings in uniform was even worse. But this?Fifty years ago, as an adolescent under legal age, I was threatened with kidnapping by my religious Catholic father who was a cop. There was a mad Catholic priest, likely a pedophile, who would kidnap suspected homosexual boys and take them to a place unknown to convert them. I am not making this up. In nursing school, I met a man in my psychiatric rotation who had been lobotomized for repeated escapes from a state hospital here in Liberal Massachusetts where he had been confined as a teen by crazy parents in the 1940's. Why was he locked up? He was homosexual and known to be promiscuous. His parents had died by the time I knew him. He was left to be a permanent ward of the state in that hospital. Probably ended up dying homeless on the streets when the hospitals were all closed to save taxpayers money.So the producers of this joke of a film decided to rationalize the life of a mentally ill homosexual in the misguided name of being broad minded. It would have been fine if the man's mental illness hadn't been rationalized as religious quest. While the film was technically fine, I have to say, "Shame on all of you who should have known better."

barbagvido I Am Michael is a movie based on a true story about Michael Glatze, a gay activist who apparently turned straight. It stars James Franco, Emma Roberts and Zachary Quinto. Unsurprisingly, this movie caused a lot of controversy. But the movie is just so forgettable.This is one of the best roles of James Franco that I've seen and Quinto did a pretty good job too. Actually, the acting in this film is pretty good in general. But the script and the direction are what causes problems. It's like they are not really sure what story they wanted to tell, what message they wanted to show. They make a movie with this subject, but then again, it's like they couldn't decided if they wanted to show Michael happy in his new life or no. So you really don't know what is going on. I guess they didn't want to take sides, but hey, this movie was bound to cause some controversy, so why bother? And when the movie ends, not much really sticks with you and you forget a lot about it eventually.This movie did featured some talent, but what ruined it was bad decisions by the writers and a bland direction combined with cinematography that just makes the movie look kinda boring. I say skip on this one.

Gordon-11 This film tells the story of a prominent gay activist who found God, and subsequently he decides to openly renounce the gay lifestyle, and go to bible school."I Am Michael" starts off rather shockingly, as James Franco's character tells a young man that he should choose to be heterosexual in order to be closer to God. Watching a film with such a content in a gay and lesbian film festival surely makes viewers gasp in disbelief! The film then continues the development of James' character, from being very embracing the gay lifestyle to renouncing it. Many anti gay comments are voiced, and more gasps of exasperation were made. Three are clues as to whether James'character really got converted or not, which is the pro gay undertone of the story. So on a deeper level, the story is really about exposing the farce of the ex-gay phenomenon, rather than being anti gay.

steven-222 Watching this film, I thought of that great movie SAFE, in which Julianne Moore plays an upper-class matron whose life takes a strange turn when she develops a sensitivity to various "toxins" all around her. Or is it just in her head? As she retreats farther and farther from the life she once knew, the viewer likewise retreats from making any easy judgments about her. The way we comprehend and navigate the world is a mysterious process, with no easy answers. Boy, what a great movie SAFE was.I hoped this movie might present a similar complexity and depth. Unfortunately, this neophyte director is no Todd Haynes. And James Franco is certainly no Julianne Moore.Alternatively, given the "controversial true story" subject matter, the movie might have been loud, polemical, and sensational, a la Oliver Stone. That would at least have been amusing, and sexy, and maybe even thought-provoking.But it's not like that, either.Instead, it's just very drab and dull. It's like some dreadfully boring TV movie of the week from the 1970s. The catatonic performances do not help, but what were the actors supposed to do with characters the script does nothing to develop? Supposedly the story is based on real people, but none of these people seem very real. A documentary of the Errol Morris variety would have shown us much, much more about what they all went through. Or a completely fictitious story might have freed the film maker to really delve into the psyches of his subjects. Instead, we are left with a very halfhearted effort to tell a "true" story in such a way that no one will be offended.Unlike SAFE, this movie plays it much too safe.