hamlet Nicely acted by all but the story is so disturbing that it sent chills up my spines. Did not enjoy it as "entertainment" nor did it help stimulate any intellectual discussion among my peers. Wonderful cast tho. Big fan of all actors involved tho.

bajmba 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.

Brendan Mikeska Love, identity, sense of self, God, religion, sin, gay, ex-gay, authenticity, confusion: all of these things and more are brought to the screen in the movie "I Am Michael" chronicling the often painful and true story of gay activist turned ex-gay poster boy Michael Glatze. The story is nuanced and the performances by James Franco and Zachary Quinton are sincere. Regardless of what your agenda is on this flash point topic, it is a movie that can be enjoyed for its story and how the world can pull at us from all directions. The fact that we are not pulled apart is a triumph in of itself and thus is the story of Michael.

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.