The Art of Being Straight (2009)

So... What's supposed to be the point of this movie? That straight white men are the most retarded, obnoxious sub-human species on the planet? That residents of Los Angeles County are the most vapid, self-obsessed, boring people in the US? That in an LA gay movie gay bosses can get away with sexual harassment and even rape of employees as long as they're hot and have fabulous tans, buff bodies and blindingly white teeth? Don't we already know all this?The only thing this movie has going for it is the one thing I care about least in a movie: the technical quality of the production - flawless sound, lighting bright enough that everything on screen is always easy to see, and a camera that never EVER shakes - so that you can easily keep up with everything that happens in this movie while simultaneously eating, texting, playing your X-Box and trying to remember what day it is.This is the kind of movie the geniuses who impress us all with such pronouncements would NEVER complain about as looking like a film-school project. Everything else about this movie is pretty bad, except for some of the acting, which is passable at best. None of the characters is the least bit believable or interesting at all, and the story is about as dumb as they come.If what you care about most in a movie is bright lighting and a camera that never shakes, this one is for you.

Bad movie with no ending. I knew I was in trouble when the main guy was the least good-looking with receding hairline (the comb over is terrible, especially after the gay sex scene). It was obvious this guy wrote and directed it; the main character would not be the least attractive if he was cast on his acting talents. The story begins with no realism-the least attractive guy is a ladies' man? Not believable. And then he has a gay eperience as a bottom? Guys in the closet do not immediately jump into anal sex-it just doesn't happen. And then the movie just ends after less than 70 minutes. I don't even want to go into the parallel story involving a teacher and some girl...not connected to the main story at all! Nothing new here-its all been done before and much better. Next time, don't cast yourself. Very few experienced film makers can star as well as direct a movie-this guy is NOT one of them.

This movie surprised me on many different levels. I was scratching my head, however, coming here and finding a relatively low rating. The comments, though, are fairly spot-on.I am very wary when somebody gets listed as writer, star and director. In the case of this movie, I realized very early on that Mr. Rosen is not only very good with dialogue, but also with conveying characters that are multi-faceted.The performances in this film, especially of Rosen and his female lead, Rachel Castillo, are very strong. It is helped by a script that is very believable, for the most part.There were many instances where gestures and the economy of less dialogue caused moments that were very moving and impressive.What prevented me from giving this film a higher rating was the disappointing nature of the interaction between Rosen and his best friends. As another commenter stated, outside of his best friend, they hardly seemed straight. Which is quite odd, because some of the supporting casting is very well done.But the whole last scene seemed to me as if the production ran out of money. Exactly where you think there will be some dramatic tension when his friends may react to the fact that he had outed himself to another friend, the movie just stops and doesn't even deal with it.I assume Rosen was trying to make the case that after coming out, one's friends will treat you exactly as they did before (well, if they are enlightened friends, yes). But, in this movie, one never knows, because it doesn't get addressed, which makes no sense because prior scenes allude to the fact that it might be a problem.Summary: The positives: Some of the most realistic representations ever written about the coming out process, some very nuanced and strong performances.The negatives: It is an unfinished work. It just ends. Some of the friends are badly miscast.Overall....this movie shows Rosen has an awful lot of talent. Definitely worth checking out. But don't expect much in the way of the film's resolution. It is, as was written earlier, a slice of life. Just not a complete slice.

To make a first movie, to write it, direct it AND star in the leading role might either be genius or heading for the big big fall. Jesse Rosen has decided to take his chances and really, he did not fall.There's a lot to comment on this movie: superfluous scenes, overplayed emotions, clichés, amateur actors and pretentious camera-work at times. But that does not get in the way of the story. The script is well wrought, although the juxtaposition of the straight boy going gay and the lesbian going straight is a little too symmetric, but things are left to guess and find out for yourself. Does Jon really go gay? Will Maddie ever make something of her life? Is Paul a predator or just looking for love? The acting by the two leads, and some supporting actors (the history teacher, the best friend), is good and a times funny and on the dot. ("Oh, you were the cutest bottom boy!")Why the ending is not more pronounced might be a question of taste, but the scene where Jon is getting back with his friends (who are supposed to be straight but seem played by very gay actors...) is plain weak.So Rosen did not fall, that's good, but it is no work of genius either.