Watch I Am Michael For Free

hyped garbage

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I am shocked how bad this movie was. On so many levels!First of all, this is an anti gay movie. You have to be aware of that. I don't blame Zachary Quinto ,who is gay in real life, for playing in this film. I understand that as an actor you can't be sure what will happen with your character in post production. I definitely blame the director, writer and the editor for the direction of this movie. Imagine a young guy who just discovers he's gay, watching this movie. What message would he get from it? This is not only bad, this is dangerous. Exactly as Michael Glatze himself.I'm gay myself and I come from a very catholic family. Let me tell you this, the church has been trying to make me hate myself for being gay for years and they use the story of Michael Glatze as justification for their hate and hypocrisy. A movie like this just helps them.Btw. Michael Glatze got $75,000 for this film. I guess god is not enough, ha? So they not only made an anti gay movie, they also paid the person responsible for so many broken lives. So he has more money for "preaching" his hypocrisy. This is outrageous!

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.

First, why is James Franco showing up in gay movies time and time again? Is he trying to tell us something? Or is he trying to gain credibility by tackling what he thinks are complex characters? The problem with casting Franco is that he doesn't live the role. He plays a character but he doesn't embrace it. If he really wanted us to believe he was playing a gay character he would embrace it fully. He would act like he enjoys being with men, he can act like a gay man, and not just be a man playing a character.As to the rest of the movie, it was developed from a magazine article and never gave a fully fleshed out idea. If you see the preview, you know everything. There is no real explanation for what caused the switch, or even what happened to the real person after his so called conversion. (Just conduct an internet search and what you'll read may convince you he has a mental instability issue) Overall, not worth the cost of a rental. It sat on the shelf for two years and with good reason. It isn't that controversial or interesting.

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.