I Am Michael (2015) User Reviews (42)

Michael is confused

[pensacolacomputer · 7/10 · 14 May 2020]

As a gay Christian I feel sorry for Michael...He is constantly changing and does not know himself...He has always been trying to get people to listen to him. He was an editor, he wrote a blog often, he would make speeches to young gay youth...and now he is a pastor . He is starved for attention.

To any gay person struggling with faith and being gay....Dont be...God would never put those thoughts into your head like that, unless that is who you are....You were born this way.....There are way way too many gay and trans people who have taken their own lives because of their religion...Its sad...Love yourself, treat others well....Do what makes you happy...Live life your way...Peace

There is a happy medium

[mls4182 · 6/10 · 27 June 2022]

People are sheep. They really are. Why can't a person be gay and spiritual? Why? So many gay people have been wrongfully led to believe that god hates them and by hypocrites! Hypocrites that don't live by the Bible themselves. All the hate people endured over one vague line in the Bible.

Most gay people live typical lives. They hurt no one. They don't live in the urban mainstream of partying and promiscuity.

Why are people led to believe they must choose between being a religious monk and a wild so called gay lifestyle? Reality is in between.

Be an individual. Choose what will make YOU happy and don't speak for anyone else.

good but plain

[andrenio-76800 · 6/10 · 3 January 2018]

I approached this move with curiosity, I knew the story wouldn't please me, but the unpleasantness and the challenging of it, ( would it defy my beliefs or ideas?, would it reveal me something new, unknown? or would I just learn something, whatever...?) plus the main actors, so gay friendly, and therefore unlikely to act in a biased, bad or religious preaching movie, drove me to watch it.

I expected the sad story of a gay activist abducted by religious beliefs..... and that's what it is: a gay man in which the fear for his own death and the afterlife, the search for a sort rock of stability and reconciliation with a dodgy conception, a misrepresentation, of the idea god, leads him to buy all the christian made up merchandise about it.

I like the even, unbiased approach, showing the conversion in an objective and balanced manner but I find it too plane, sometimes boring, I miss a deeper approach to the psychology of that process, and a bit more challenge of the christian ideas and faulty reasoning that wreak havoc in Glatze's mind by the other characters in the movie.

The answer to the questions I started with is a cold NO.

My view on M. Glatze personal conversion story: I understand the fear of death and the longing for and afterlife, but and adult, empiric, scientific and properly reasoning and educated mind should know and be aware of a few things:

1.- Nobody knows anything about god. God has never spoken to any human being no matter how many of those men claimed so, because they could never prove it. If god wanted to communicate with us he/she/it certainly would have many blunt ways to do so: showing in the sky like Woody allen's mom, or in any other direct manner. So, until it can be proven, beyond doubt, in a scientific way, his existence can NOT be asserted. 2.- The Bible is NOT god's word, but man's word speculating about God's nature and plans with the huge ignorance of the times it was written. this is so obvious that is almost shameful having to say it.

3.- The idea of salvation and the promise of the afterlife is an old trick of all religions to impose fear and gather power and money from people. Selling salvation is a lucrative business, especially since they sell a good or service they don't have to pay spend any money in, and for which they can no be held accountable if is not delivered. Amazon delivery policies and regulations are way more advanced and fair than this.

I seriously recommend

• the videos and books of Richard Dawkins, like God delusion,
• and the experience of Daniel Everett, a missionary that lost faith to Amazonian tribe Piraha.

Effective Performances

[SLUGMagazineFilms · 3 February 2015]

Audiences are first introduced to Michael Glatze (James Franco) as he chastises a young gay teenager and declares moral individuals choose heterosexuality and God. However, this was not always the case with Mr. Glatze. Rewind the story a decade and we find Michael living happily in San Francisco with his partner Bennett (Zachary Quinto) as he works as the Managing Editor of XY Magazine, a popular gay lifestyle publication. Glatze encouraged gay communities to identify with their sexuality, but after a medical scare revolving around his potential heart condition, Glatze begins his journey exploring Christianity and abandoning his former beliefs and lifestyle. Franco beautifully portrays an obviously confused individual questioning his own mortality and willing to risk everything he's built his life around. Quinto offers the supporting shoulder as he is forced to move forward into an uncertain future with the love of his life. Director Justin Kelly effectively leads audiences though the life of a confused individual who abandons one life for another while outsiders both ridicule and praise his challenging choice. -Jimmy Martin

Really, Mary?

[paulcreeden · 6/10 · 5 July 2017]

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."

Who is Michael?

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 23 February 2018]

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 ...

Really not much

[barbagvido · 4/10 · 20 April 2017]

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.

Very smart film with a good performance by Franco

[subxerogravity · 6/10 · 29 January 2017]

Yeah, James Franco likes to do those small indi smart films. In this one he is Micheal, once an openly gay man he has a change of heart once he let's God into it.

I feel like the film is working somewhat in reverse for me. In an average formula, Micheal would be a man of God who finds love with another man that changes his path. Not that the way this movie's formatted is wrong, but overall the film gives the feeling of non closure (and I think that was the point).

James Franco played Micheal with excellence. He was a confused man who was unfortunately torn between a book that tells us what God wants and being himself, which will make him truly happy. Franco made you feel his torment, that you can see from the very start of the movie.

Zachary Quinto was a great supporting actor, although I have to admit I feel like James Franco played a better gay man than Quinto. Maybe Franco is not Quinto's type, or maybe I was expected their passion to erupt off the screen like it does when Franco is kissing up on Seth Rogen( Maybe that's asking too much).

All jokes aside, I am Micheal was an interesting look on those with spiritually in their hearts trying to balance it with what also feels right in their hearts and no matter weather you agree on disagree with how Micheal handles it, it's the type of thing you want to see and have an open discussion about.

http://cinemagardens.com

Still Trying to work out the ruddy point

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 3/10 · 12 April 2017]

Michael is a young man that thinks a lot. We first meet him when he is working for a campaigning, gay magazine and he is with Ben whom he seems to love and has committed to. Then Michael's mother dies and he starts to think about his whole existence and what happens after death.

This leads him on a spiritual path where he realises that he no longer identifies as 'gay'. Now that is all well and dandy but this film really takes its time. Michael is shown as a troubled man who seems to engender a lot of care, sympathy and warmth from those around him and this is despite him being as inspiring as a used shopping list.

His continual whinging about his inner turmoil with God and his old beliefs wear very thin very fast. I kept thinking the plot might make a welcomed detour but alas and alack nay. It really was an absolute bind to get through and that is even with a very good cast, some excellent performances, high production values and good cinematography. It is based on a short story and that may be where the problem is in that there is just simply not enough 'plot' here to make a full length feature.

The other major trip for me is that you have to care about the characters in order to be engaged and gain empathy and I stopped caring for Michael around half way through. The supporting cast are often more deserving and as such this just did not work for me at all.

Loved the True Story, Could've Been Written Much Better!!

[rmccoy0619 · 7/10 · 18 September 2022]

I absolutely loved the true story behind the movie, but this movie was created to send a message out into the world. If not.... why make it? Yes we are faced with sexual sin daily because we live in a world that gives us freely whatever our hearts desires. I am a Christian and I know first hand the confusion this man has faced! The confusion of doing something knowing it's not God's will and telling the other person we need to stop and showing them where in the Bible tells us why, over and over. It's a tortured place to be. This movie had so many talented actors they could've really amped up their characters emotions and beliefs as well as the actual Word of God by showing the attributes of God (Loving, Merciful, Graceful, and All Knowing). What it means to actually break away from any sexual stronghold. What God puts in place of it. This movie seemed to look more at the negativity of this man overcoming his personal identity as someone with these deep rooted sexual desires that he thought made him who he was to him realizing that his identity is so much more because it's in Christ Jesus. That doesn't seem right if your trying to share something like this. Whoever wrote this I really wish they did their homework! Faithful and True Is about all sexual sin and there are men groups all over coming together in anonymity doing this workbook and mentoring each other trying to make a difference. For young women and women separate there is an amazing book with workbooks about overcoming sexual sin, that you can get plugged into a small group. (Please look for these groups at nondenominational Christian Churches with groups) We need more stories like this! But we need them to show God as a HE truly is! If I was confused new Christian and started to believe I am supposed to be with same gender, this movie would not help me.

"Based on a true story"...

[nycruise-1 · 3/10 · 8 December 2020]

A lot of reviewers are confused or even outraged by this movie. Well, guess what? That's because you only got HALF the story. I remember Michael and his boyfriend (in real life named "Benji") and their polyamrous relationship with a third young gay man ("Scott" in real life). In fact, I saw them all speak in NYC at a bookstore when they were promoting "Jim in Bold" (a documentary that spotlighted a young gay man's suicide juxtaposed with footage of Michael and company touring the USA and speaking with gay teens in rural/conservative areas). They were all "Rah-rah-rah GAY and Michael was especially honest about his own homophobia growing up. It was also obvious that they were sexually active - and, in fact, when I spoke with Scott afterward, he gave me his phone number.... Well, after awhile they fell off the radar and I never knew what happened to them...UNTIL I googled "Young Gay America" and found that Michael had gone str8. In interviews he diligently avowed his "straight" awakening and relationship with God. And that's what you get from this movie. What is not at all discussed or even hinted at is what actually caused this catharsis: Benji seroconverted as a result of their cross-country tourings. Whether Michael has HIV or not has never been revealed - only that Michael turned to God when faced with such close encounter with HIV. In that regard, he reminds me of any drug addict who almost fatally ODs but then, upon awakening and finding themselves alive, they make a promise to God to repent and promote salvation to the Lord. Now do you get the movie?

An eye-opener, on many levels

[robtyrrell-98607 · 9/10 · 15 February 2020]

I stumbled onto this, having never heard of Michael Glatze. As an atheist and gay man, I was intrigued to learn about this story (and kind of embarrassed to have known nothing about him already).

The performances, especially James Franco's, were excellent. He was utterly believable in expressing Glatze's changes over the course of the film - ironically enough, as mesmerizing to watch as he was in "Milk".

Yeah, parts of the film kind of drag. But the script and the acting are well done. Many of the actors do a great job conveying emotions and characters' motivations just as well non-verbally as through the dialogue. Being a gay man and an atheist I still fundamentally, profoundly disagree with Glatze's views....but this movie helped me understand him better.

Why???

[ecarlson-593-120461 · 4/10 · 5 August 2019]

I truly can't figure out why James Franco and Zac Quinton, of all people, wanted to make this movie. A big problem for me is the writing, which is clunky, and the choppy structure. I never felt emotionally engaged enough to develop any empathy or understanding. Michael remains a mystery, a tragedy, and a bit of a monster to me.

Powerful subject but very flawed film

[phaylen · 3/10 · 27 February 2017]

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.

Anti gay movie, offensive, but still boring

[michalk9 · 1/10 · 12 March 2018]

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!

Why?

[tiagohmelo · 2/10 · 28 April 2019]

Why make a movie about a person with such a useless and uninteresting life? Absolutely shallow film about an annoying and boring person.

Great Movie about Michael Glatze

[Westeire · 10/10 · 28 December 2015]

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.

Drab and timid

[steven-222 · 2/10 · 21 June 2015]

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.

A Piece Of Trash

[crlsntc · 1/10 · 29 February 2020]

A huge disadvantage for the LGBT community. the film has no reason to be made or exist, leaving for free interpretation if you think right or wrong conversion therapies. Strange to think that the director of the film himself is gay.

An apparent anti gay film but not really on a deeper level

[Gordon-11 · 26 September 2015]

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.

A tale of ambiguity.

[rjshrine-166-529165 · 3/10 · 25 March 2020]

I fell asleep. Can you change your sexual orientation or not? Michael didn't seem too sure and neither did I. His "conversion" did not seem all that convincing.. I saw a rather weak case for the concept of conversion therapy itself.

.

[kyilmaz-16776 · 2/10 · 30 January 2019]

I had a nervous breakdown..............................................

Honest Interpretation of a Man's Life, Nothing More

[gilmorebj12 · 8/10 · 29 December 2016]

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.

Predictable

[hjames-97822 · 4/10 · 27 May 2015]

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.

I beg you, don't bother...

[Mark-hardy70 · 2/10 · 21 February 2019]

Poorly acted, poorly directed and with the depth of a millpond. Painful to watch.