I really thought I would love I AM MICHAEL. The subject matter is not one that has been sensibly explored from an authentic and non- bias perspective before. I was apprehensive about James Franco's participation. While Franco is a brilliant actor, his ongoing public gay-baiting and exploitation of the gay community have reduced him to a mere instagram underwear model. however, his inclusion was salvaged when I saw the enigmatic and vastly talented Zachary Quinto was involved. Quinto is both deeply respected as an actor and doesn't have to provoke a response by portraying himself as eye- candy or demanding people question his sexuality for unnecessary attention, he is an actor, and he is masterful.Both were great in I Am Michael. Not shockingly at all. But we can presume Quinto did it because it was an incredibly important story... and Franco did the film to continue dangling himself in front of gay men. It could have been an Oscar winner, but who can take James Franco seriously anymore in subjects that require sensitivity and respect for LGBT people in general? The film also suffered from a devastatingly bad script. The construct was there; the dialog was broken and unnatural. It came across as quite immature and, even worse, amateur. Director Justin Kelly failed to make the heavy content move at an acceptable pace and I found myself wanting desperately to fast forward 20 minutes, which I did, and realized I didn't miss anything except Franco wandering around open fields in slow motion... or city streets... or a park, angst ridden and boring. Really, really boring. Any impact the film could have is absolutely lost because of the ridiculously slug-like pacing and poorly constructed exchanges. Frankly, the film felt more like a student film. A student desperate to make an important film and be taken seriously. It didn't really work. For that, there is no excuse with a powerhouse producer like Gus Van Zandt; seasoned actors Quinto and Emma Roberts and even a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo by Daryl Hannah. The responsibility here falls squarely on the shoulder of Director Justin Kelly- because he co-wrote the disastrous screenplay as well.I can't even recommend you see this, which sort of breaks my heart because of everything I wanted it to be, but it falls short on every single level and becomes a long winded, painfully self important and unnecessary film. In the right hands, it could have been a very relevant film. Alas, it was not.I scored this three stars for the inclusion of an amazing Tori Amos song, which coupled with a better film, could have been massively poignant.

Great movie about Michael Glatze. Getting a lot of mixed reviews from the LGBT community, the reality is we have to be open to everyone and not just those who share the same views as us. It would have been easy for Kelly to direct a feature which depicted Glatze as a self-hating gay man who hurls himself back in the closet, but the truth may be more complicated (some have suggested Glatze may not have been gay in the first place), and the film attempts to present the facts of his life at the time without making judgments. Its a great movie. The movie may be uncomfortable viewing for some (Gay and Straight) but its a movie that is worthy in its own right.

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.

Not a Franco fan at all, but I did want to see this first feature effort from Justin Kelly. Kelly is also credited as co-screen writer. I admit, I am impressed with his direction and with the screenplay.All too often gay cinema and movies in general really, suffer from weak stories and crumbling screenplays. Terrible dialog and a habit of relying on sex type scenes to prop them up. This is not the case here at all.The subject is Michael Glatze, magazine editor and gay rights advocate who finds his epiphany in religion. He renounces his "lifestyle" and decides he is simply a straight guy with a "homosexual problem." No spoilers from me (even though I checked the box to be safe). Zach Quinto (Jon Groff's former lover) plays Glatze's boyfriend. Charlie Carver is the twink love interest (what else?). Emma Roberts does a fine turn as Glatze's wife. And then there's James Franco.Couldn't they find anyone else for this role? Seriously, he has played these mentally challenged types so many times I can't hardly stand to watch any more. There must be someone--some other actor--that Van Sant and/or Kelly could have turned to. He really is over used and becoming tiresome to watch.Oh yes, there's some skin. There's a 3-way between Franco, Quinto and Carver that the PR crew is hyping the hell out of. It's not all that steamy. When they start interviewing the actors repeatedly about a single sex scene, you know they are in trouble. About all you will see is some manicured man butt and who hasn't seen this about a thousand times already? Still, they are looking for wider distribution. If you get the chance, I suggest you see it. Even though it means enduring one of Franco's typical, retread jobs as an actor.