No I'm not going game show on you, providing the question to the answer the title is supposedly giving us. But Franco tackles another hot topic and something that not many would have wanted to associate themselves with. It's really walking a fine line, even though it is based on a real person. We are talking about someone who suddently has an "epiphany" and thinks him being gay, was just a phase.Something you can just get rid off. Something other people have claimed while shaming those who have those tendencies and feelings. It is tough to watch sometimes, but you have great acting in it. It can also feel like it is dragging at times, but it still has something to say. It obviously is not a movie for everyone but if you are not easily offended, there may be something here, that make you think ...

While the movie as a movie is just...well...a movie. I have to say after studying up on "Michael" the man himself, it seems to be a pretty honest interpretation of who he is and what he went through. I find it fascinating that people are hating on the actors about being a part of this. It's a movie and it doesn't really promote an agenda one way or the other. It is simply a story about a homosexual man that found God and made the personal decision to walk away from the lifestyle and embrace another. I am curious to see what the LGBT community would have thought about a movie with the opposite plot, a Christian man that walks away from his faith to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. Wouldn't it be "equally" terrible to have someone deny who they "really are" to embrace an opposing lifestyle? It's a decent watch with some good performances by Franco and Quinto (AND PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO GET OFF HIS CASE ABOUT HIM TAKING THIS PART IN THIS FILM). It's like saying that Ian McDirmaid played Emperor Palpatine so he must believe in genocide! Stop being nuts people.

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.

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.