GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

andrenio-76800 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.

Tom Dooley 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.

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.